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

Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Toxicity is defined as a statistically significant effect in the sample exposure compared to the control using EPA-recommended hypothesis testing. For SWAMP data exceedances are counted with the significant effect code SL. SL is defined as the result being significant compared to the negative control based on a statistical test, less than stated the alpha level, AND less than the evaluation threshold.

Guideline Reference:

Short-term Methods for Estimating the Chronic Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters to Freshwater Organisms. Fourth Edition. Office of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, D.C. EPA-821-R-02-013

Spatial Representation:

The sample was collected at station 558CCR010.

Temporal Representation:

The sample was collected in April 2008.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Data quality is good. Data results were recorded in the SWAMP database and followed SWAMP protocols.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 73586, Toxicity	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

LOE ID:

21927

Pollutant:

Toxicity

LOE Subgroup:

Toxicity

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Aquatic Life Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

TOXICITY TESTING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Four of 11 samples tested with Selenastrum capricornutum was toxic and violated the narrative toxicity objective. Three samples collected at Cross Creek exhibited a statistically significant decrease in growth compared to the control. The sample dates and percent of control (in parentheses) are as follows:27 June 2006 (73)31 July 2006 (77)28 August 2006 (70)One sample collected at Cross Creek at Houston Avenue exhibited a statistically significant decrease in growth compared to the control. The sample date and percent of control (in parentheses) are as follows:27 June 2006 (72)

Data Reference:

Revised Draft of the 2007 Review of the Monitoring Data for the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Conditional Waiver Program

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin Second Edition. rev. Jan 2004

Evaluation Guideline:

Statistically significant difference from control using a t-test with 4-day chronic-style toxicity tests.

Guideline Reference:

Short-term Methods for Estimating the Chronic Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters to Freshwater and Marine Organisms, Fourth Edition. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water, Washington, DC EPA-821-R-02-013

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from four locations: Cross Creek, Cross Creek at Highway 99, Cross Creek at Houston Ave, and Cross Creek at Kansas Ave.

Temporal Representation:

Samples were collected from February 2005 to August 2006.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Monitoring was conducted in accordance with Central Valley Water Board Monitoring and Reporting Program (order number R5-2003-0826) requirements (CVRWQCB, 2003)

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 73586, Toxicity	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

LOE ID:

21922

Pollutant:

Toxicity

LOE Subgroup:

Toxicity

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Aquatic Life Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

TOXICITY TESTING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Zero of the 11 samples tested with Ceriodaphnia dubia were toxic and violated the narrative toxicity objective.

Data Reference:

Revised Draft of the 2007 Review of the Monitoring Data for the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Conditional Waiver Program

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin Second Edition. rev. Jan 2004

Evaluation Guideline:

Statistically significant difference from control using a t-test with 4-day acute-style toxicity tests.

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from four locations: Cross Creek, Cross Creek at Highway 99, Cross Creek at Houston Ave, and Cross Creek at Kansas Ave.

Temporal Representation:

Samples were collected from February 2005 to August 2006.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Monitoring was conducted in accordance with Central Valley Water Board Monitoring and Reporting Program (order number R5-2003-0826) requirements (CVRWQCB, 2003)

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 73586, Toxicity	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

LOE ID:

21924

Pollutant:

Toxicity

LOE Subgroup:

Toxicity

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Aquatic Life Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

TOXICITY TESTING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Only one sample tested with Hyalella azteca survival.

Data Reference:

Revised Draft of the 2007 Review of the Monitoring Data for the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Conditional Waiver Program

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin Second Edition. rev. Jan 2004

Evaluation Guideline:

Statistically significant difference from control using a t-test with 10-day Hyalella azteca sediment toxicity tests.

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Sample was collected from Cross Creek at Highway 99.

Temporal Representation:

Sample was collected on November 5,2005.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Monitoring was conducted in accordance with Central Valley Water Board Monitoring and Reporting Program (order number R5-2003-0826) requirements (CVRWQCB, 2003)

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 73586, Toxicity	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

LOE ID:

62039

Pollutant:

Toxicity

LOE Subgroup:

Toxicity

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

TOXICITY TESTING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Ten samples were collected to evaluate water toxicity. Four of the samples exhibited significant toxicity (Selenastrum capricornutum, Pimephales promelas and Ceriodaphnia dubia. 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.

Data Reference:

Data for Various Pollutants in Southern San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2009.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

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:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at Cross Creek at Highway 99 (Revised).

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected in February 2005, December 2008 and February 2009.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Collected under the Management Plan South San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition.

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	85556	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

Pollutant:	2,4,5-TP (Silvex)
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of 4 sample exceeds the guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. 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 4 sample exceeds the 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 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 85556, 2,4,5-TP (Silvex)	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

LOE ID:

79321

Pollutant:

2,4,5-TP (Silvex)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

State Water Board staff assessed ILRP data for Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceed the criterion for 2,4,5-TP.

Data Reference:

Data for Various Pollutants in Southern San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2009.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin: No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed

Evaluation Guideline:

The evaluation guideline for 2,4,5,-TP, 2900 ug/L, is one-tenth of the median lethal concentration (LC50). The LC50 for 2,4,5,-TP is 29000 ug/L (USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database).

Guideline Reference:

Data for Various Pollutants in Southern San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2009.

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Cross Creek at Highway 99 (Previous) - 558CCHSP4, Cross Creek at Highway 99 (Revised) - 558CCRSP4]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 1/10/2005-4/12/2006.

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	85608	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

Pollutant:	2,4-D (2,4-Dichlorophenoxy acetic acid)
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of 4 samples exceed the guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. 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 4 samples exceed the 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 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 85608, 2,4-D (2,4-Dichlorophenoxy acetic acid)	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

LOE ID:

79316

Pollutant:

2,4-D (2,4-Dichlorophenoxy acetic acid)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

State Water Board staff assessed ILRP data for Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceed the criterion for 2, 4-D.

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

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 2,4-D is 695 ug/l (USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database).

Guideline Reference:

Data for Various Pollutants in Southern San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2009.

Spatial Representation:

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 1/10/2005-4/12/2006.

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	88606	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

Pollutant:	Alachlor
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the five 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 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 the five samples exceed the 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 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 the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

State Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 88606, Alachlor	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

LOE ID:

62154

Pollutant:

Alachlor

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 5 samples exceed the criterion for Alachlor.

Data Reference:

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, Tulare Lake Basin)

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin Second Edition. rev. Jan 2004

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 Alachlor, 1.64 ug/L, is the EC50 for Selenastrum capricornutum (Green algae); USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database.

Guideline Reference:

Data for Various Pollutants in Southern San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2009.

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties) was collected at two monitoring sites [Cross Creek at Highway 99 (Previous) - 558CCRSP4 and Cross Creek at Highway 99 (Revised) - 558CCRSP4]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 8/10/2005-6/17/2009.

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	88530	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

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 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 six 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 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 the six samples exceed the 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 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 the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

State Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 88530, Aldicarb	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

LOE ID:

62155

Pollutant:

Aldicarb

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 3 samples exceed the criterion for Aldicarb.

Data Reference:

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, Tulare Lake Basin)

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin Second Edition. rev. Jan 2004

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:

Data for Various Pollutants in Southern San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2009.

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Cross Creek at Highway 99 (Revised) - 558CCRSP4]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 1/3/2006-6/17/2009.

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	88531	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

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 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 six 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 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 the six samples exceed the 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 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 the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

State Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 88531, Aldrin	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

LOE ID:

62156

Pollutant:

Aldrin

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 3 samples exceed the criterion for Aldrin.

Data Reference:

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 Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Cross Creek at Highway 99 (Revised) - 558CCRSP4]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected intermittently between 1/3/2006 and 6/17/2009.

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	74634	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

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(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of 3 samples exceed the objective in water and 0 of 1 sample exceeds the guideline in sediment. 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 3 samples exceed the objective in water and 0 of 1 sample exceeds the guideline in sediment and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

State Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 74634, Arsenic	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

LOE ID:

62163

Pollutant:

Arsenic

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 3 samples exceed the criterion for Arsenic.

Data Reference:

Data for Various Pollutants in Southern San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2009.

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 Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Cross Creek at Highway 99 (Revised) - 558CCRSP4]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 12/15/2008-6/17/2009.

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):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 74634, Arsenic	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

LOE ID:

62157

Pollutant:

Arsenic

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

SWAMP data indicates that 0 of the sample results exceed the evaluation guideline value for Arsenic.

Data Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Tulare Lake Basin)

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

In freshwater sediments, the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for arsenic is 33 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).

Guideline Reference:

Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence was collected at one monitoring site [ Cross Creek - Rd. 60 and Hwy 99558CCR010]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on 4/29/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan


DECISION ID	85609	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

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(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 4 samples exceed the guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. 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 4 samples exceed the 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 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 85609, Atrazine	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

LOE ID:

62164

Pollutant:

Atrazine

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 3 samples exceed the criterion for Atrazine.

Data Reference:

Data for Various Pollutants in Southern 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. (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:

Data for Various Pollutants in Southern San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2009.

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Cross Creek at Highway 99 (Revised) - 558CCRSP4]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on four dates between 8/7/2006 and 6/17/2009.

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	88532	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

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 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 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 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 the zero samples exceed the 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 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 the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

State Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 88532, Azinphos-methyl (Guthion)	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

LOE ID:

62165

Pollutant:

Azinphos-methyl (Guthion)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

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:

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Cross Creek at Highway 99 (Revised) - 558CCRSP4]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 12/15/2008-6/17/2009.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0 was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Project Plan by the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, Revision 1.0.


DECISION ID	88533	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

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 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 four 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 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 the four samples exceed the 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 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 the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

State Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 88533, Benomyl	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

LOE ID:

79263

Pollutant:

Benomyl

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

State Water Board staff assessed ILRP data for Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceed the criterion for Benomyl.

Data Reference:

Data for Various Pollutants in Southern San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2009.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin: 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.

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:

According to the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the MATC for Benomyl is 2.2 ug/L.

Guideline Reference:

Data for Various Pollutants in Southern San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2009.

Spatial Representation:

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 1/10/2005-4/12/2006.

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	85610	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

Pollutant:	Bifenthrin
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of 0 water samples exceed the guideline. Zero of one sediment sample exceeds 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 0 water samples exceed the guideline. Zero of one sediment sample exceeds the evaluation guideline. This sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

State Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 85610, Bifenthrin	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

LOE ID:

62166

Pollutant:

Bifenthrin

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Bifenthrin. One sample was 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:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

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 Bifenthrin, 0.0006 ug/L, is not exceeded more than once every three years on the average (UC Davis Aquatic Life Criterion).

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Cross Creek at Highway 99 (Revised) - 558CCRSP4]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on a single day 6/17/2009.

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):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 85610, Bifenthrin	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

LOE ID:

62167

Pollutant:

Bifenthrin

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

SWAMP data indicates that 0 of the sample results exceed the evaluation guideline value for Bifenthrin.

Data Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Waters shall not contain pesticides in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in pesticide concentrations in bottom sediments or aquatic life that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Tulare Lake Basin)

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

The evaluation guideline value for bifenthrin, 0.043 ug/g OC, is one-tenth of the median lethal concentration for H. azteca (LC50; 0.43 ug/g OC). The LC50 (0.43 ug/g OC) is the geometric mean of OC-normalized LC50 values for bifenthrin from Amweg et al. (2005) and Amweg and Weston (2007).

Guideline Reference:

Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5

Guideline Reference:

Whole-sediment toxicity identification evaluation tools for pyrethroid insecticides: I. piperonyl butoxide addition. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 26:2389-2396.

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence was collected at one monitoring site [ Cross Creek - Rd. 60 and Hwy 99558CCR010]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on 4/29/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 85610, Bifenthrin	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

LOE ID:

78562

Pollutant:

Bifenthrin

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed ILRP data for Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for bifenthrin. The two available samples were not used in the assessment because the OC-normalized laboratory data reporting limit was above the objective, the available OC-normalized samples were below the laboratory data reporting limit, 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 Southern San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2009.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin Second Edition. rev. Jan 2004

Evaluation Guideline:

The evaluation guideline value for bifenthrin in sediment (0.043 ug/g OC), is one-tenth of the geometric mean (0.43 ug/g OC) of the organic carbon-normalized (OC) LC50 values for Hyalella azteca, an amphipod crustacean. The LC50 values were derived by Amweg et al. 2005 and Amweg and Weston 2007.

Guideline Reference:

Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5

Guideline Reference:

Whole-sediment toxicity identification evaluation tools for pyrethroid insecticides: I. piperonyl butoxide addition. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 26:2389-2396.

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence was collected at one monitoring site [ Cross Creek at Hwy 99 (Revised) 558CCRSP4].

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected from 4/21/2009 to 10/14/2009.

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	88607	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

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 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 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 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 the eight samples exceed the 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 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 the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

State Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 88607, Boron	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

LOE ID:

79355

Pollutant:

Boron

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Agricultural Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

State Water Board staff assessed ILRP data for Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 8 samples exceed the criterion for Boron.

Data Reference:

Data for Various Pollutants in Southern San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2009.

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:

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 1/10/2005-6/17/2009.

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	85611	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

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(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 6 samples exceed the guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. 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 6 samples exceed the 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 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 85611, Bromacil	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

LOE ID:

62031

Pollutant:

Bromacil

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Bromacil.

Data Reference:

Data for Various Pollutants in Southern 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. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Tulare Lake Basin)

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin Second Edition. rev. Jan 2004

Evaluation Guideline:

The EC50 for bromacil for Lemna gibba (duckweed) is 45 ug/L (USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database).

Guideline Reference:

Data for Various Pollutants in Southern San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2009.

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Cross Creek at Highway 99 (Revised) - 558CCRSP4]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 1/3/2006-6/17/2009.

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	68743	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

Pollutant:	Cadmium
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of 3 samples exceed the objective in water and 0 of 1 sample exceeds the sample in sediment. 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 3 samples exceed the objective in water and 0 of 1 sample exceeds the sample in sediment and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

State Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 68743, Cadmium	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

LOE ID:

62033

Pollutant:

Cadmium

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed AgWaiver data for Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 3 samples exceed the criterion for Cadmium.

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

The California Toxics Rule (CTR) lists criterion continuous concentrations (4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater. The cadmium criterion in freshwater is hardness-dependent for each sample and varies based on the ambient hardness during sampling. Section (b)(1) in CTR contains the hardness dependent formula for the metals criterion.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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 Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Cross Creek at Highway 99 (Revised) - 558CCRSP4]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 12/15/2008-6/17/2009.

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):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 68743, Cadmium	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

LOE ID:

62032

Pollutant:

Cadmium

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

SWAMP data indicates that 0 of the sample results exceed the evaluation guideline value for Cadmium.

Data Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. Discharges shall not result in pesticide concentrations in bottom sediments or aquatic life that adversely affect beneficial uses. All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Sacramento River and San Joaquin River Basins).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

In freshwater sediments, the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for cadmium is 4.98 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).

Guideline Reference:

Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence was collected at one monitoring site [ Cross Creek - Rd. 60 and Hwy 99558CCR010]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on 4/29/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan


DECISION ID	68744	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

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(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 6 samples exceed the guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. 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 6 samples exceed the 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 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 68744, Carbaryl	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

LOE ID:

62034

Pollutant:

Carbaryl

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Carbaryl.

Data Reference:

Data for Various Pollutants in Southern 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. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Tulare Lake Basin)

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin Second Edition. rev. Jan 2004

Evaluation Guideline:

The USEPA recommended water quality criterion for freshwater aquatic life for carbaryl is 2.1 µg/L.

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Cross Creek at Highway 99 (Revised) - 558CCRSP4]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 1/3/2006-6/17/2009.

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	88609	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

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 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 three 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 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 the three samples exceed the 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 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 the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

State Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 88609, Carbofuran	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

LOE ID:

62035

Pollutant:

Carbofuran

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 3 samples exceed the criterion for Carbofuran. 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 Southern 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. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Tulare Lake Basin)

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin Second Edition. rev. Jan 2004

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 Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Cross Creek at Highway 99 (Revised) - 558CCRSP4]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 12/15/2008-6/17/2009.

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	88765	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

Pollutant:	Chlordane
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the zero water samples exceed the evaluation guideline for WARM, and zero of the one sediment samples exceed the evaluation guideline for WARM. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of the zero water samples exceed the evaluation guideline for WARM, and zero of the one sediment samples exceed the evaluation guideline for WARM and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples 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 the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

State Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 88765, Chlordane	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

LOE ID:

78630

Pollutant:

Chlordane

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Aquatic Life Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties) to determine beneficial use support. All five of the sample results are reported at levels below their median detection limit values. Since the method detection limit values are greater than the criterion for Chlordane, the sample results could not be used to determine whether there are any exceedances. 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Chlordane.

Data Reference:

Data for Various Pollutants in Southern 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. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Tulare Lake Basin)

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin Second Edition. rev. Jan 2004

Evaluation Guideline:

The evaluation guideline for Chlordane, 0.0043 ug/L, is the CTR for freshwater aquatic life protection from chronic exposure. This criterion is based on 304(a) aquatic life criterion issued in 1980, and was issued in following documents Chlordane (EPA 440/5-80-027.

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected between 1/10/2005 and 7/19/2006.

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):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 88765, Chlordane	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

LOE ID:

62041

Pollutant:

Chlordane

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Zero of 1 sample collected exceeded the criteria for chlordane concentration (Sum of trans-Chlordane, cis-Chlordane, cis-Nonachlor, trans-Nonachlor, and Oxychlordane).

Data Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin Second Edition. rev. Jan 2004

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. Waters shall not contain substances in concentrations that result in the deposition of material that causes nuisance or adversely affects beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

The Probable Effect Concentration for Chlordane in freshwater sediments is 17.6 ug/kg(MacDonald et al. 2000).

Guideline Reference:

Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31

Spatial Representation:

Data were collected at the following station 558CCR010 (Cross Creek - Rd. 60 and Hwy 99).

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected on 4/29/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan


DECISION ID	88685	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

Pollutant:	Chloroform
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the six 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 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 the six samples exceed the 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 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 the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

State Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 88685, Chloroform	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

LOE ID:

79302

Pollutant:

Chloroform

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

State Water Board staff assessed ILRP data for Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Chloroform.

Data Reference:

Data for Various Pollutants in Southern San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2009.

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:

The Chloroform criteria for the protection of freshwater aquatic life is 1240 ug/L (National Recommended Water Quality Criteria, 2009).

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 1/10/2005-4/12/2006.

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	99943	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

Pollutant:	Chlorpyrifos
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of 1 water sample exceeds the guideline. Zero of zero sediment 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 1 water sample exceeds the guideline. Zero of zero sediment samples exceed the evaluation guideline. This sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

State Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 99943, Chlorpyrifos	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

LOE ID:

78655

Pollutant:

Chlorpyrifos

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed ILRP data for Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for chlorpyrifos. The two available samples were not used in the assessment because the OC-normalized laboratory data reporting limit was above the objective, the available OC-normalized samples were below the laboratory data reporting limit, 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 Southern San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2009.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin Second Edition. rev. Jan 2004

Evaluation Guideline:

The evaluation guideline value for chlorpyrifos in sediment (0.177 ug/g OC), is one-tenth of the geometric mean (1.77 ug/g OC) of the organic carbon-normalized (OC) LC50 values for Hyalella azteca, an amphipod crustacean. The LC50 values were derived by Amweg and Weston (2007).

Guideline Reference:

Whole-sediment toxicity identification evaluation tools for pyrethroid insecticides: I. piperonyl butoxide addition. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 26:2389-2396.

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence was collected at one monitoring site [Cross Creek at Highway 99 (Revised) - 558CCRSP4].

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected from 4/21/2009 to 10/14/2009.

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):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 99943, Chlorpyrifos	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

LOE ID:

62043

Pollutant:

Chlorpyrifos

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

Data for Various Pollutants in Southern 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. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Tulare Lake Basin)

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin Second Edition. rev. Jan 2004

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 Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Cross Creek at Highway 99 (Revised) - 558CCRSP4]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 12/15/2008-6/17/2009.

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):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 99943, Chlorpyrifos	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

LOE ID:

62042

Pollutant:

Chlorpyrifos

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

The sample was below both the reporting limit (5 ng/g dry weight) and the organic carbon-normalized evaluation guideline value (1.77 ug/g OC) and could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the listing policy.

Data Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

The evaluation guideline value for chlorpyrifos, 0.177 ug/g OC, is one-tenth of the median lethal concentration for H. azteca (LC50; 1.77 ug/g OC). The LC50 (1.77 ug/g OC) is the geometric mean of OC-normalized LC50 values for chlorpyrifos from Amweg and Weston (2007).

Guideline Reference:

Whole-sediment toxicity identification evaluation tools for pyrethroid insecticides: I. piperonyl butoxide addition. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 26:2389-2396.

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence was collected at one monitoring site [ Cross Creek - Rd. 60 and Hwy 99558CCR010]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on 4/29/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan


DECISION ID	85834	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

Pollutant:	Chromium
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.6 two 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 1 sample exceeds the guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of 1 sample exceeds the 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 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 85834, Chromium	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

LOE ID:

62044

Pollutant:

Chromium

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

SWAMP data indicates that 0 of the sample results exceed the evaluation guideline value for Chromium.

Data Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

In freshwater sediments, the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for chromium is 111 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).

Guideline Reference:

Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence was collected at one monitoring site [ Cross Creek - Rd. 60 and Hwy 99558CCR010]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on 4/29/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan


DECISION ID	85835	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

Pollutant:	Copper
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of 3 samples exceed the objective in water and 0 of 1 sample exceeds the guideline in sediment. 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 3 samples exceed the objective in water and 0 of 1 sample exceeds the guideline in sediment and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

State Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 85835, Copper	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

LOE ID:

62045

Pollutant:

Copper

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

SWAMP data indicates that 0 of the sample results exceed the evaluation guideline value for Copper.

Data Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

In freshwater sediments, the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for copper is 149 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).

Guideline Reference:

Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence was collected at one monitoring site [ Cross Creek - Rd. 60 and Hwy 99558CCR010]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on 4/29/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 85835, Copper	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

LOE ID:

62048

Pollutant:

Copper

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed AgWaiver data for Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 3 samples exceed the criterion for Copper.

Data Reference:

Data for Various Pollutants in Southern San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2009.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

The California Toxics Rule (CTR) lists criterion continuous concentrations (4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater. The chromium criterion in freshwater is hardness-dependent for each sample and varies based on the ambient hardness during sampling. Section (b)(1) in CTR contains the hardness-dependent formula for metals criteria.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Cross Creek at Highway 99 (Revised) - 558CCRSP4]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 12/15/2008-6/17/2009.

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	88686	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

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 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 four 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 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 the four samples exceed the 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 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 the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

State Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 88686, Cyanazine	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

LOE ID:

62049

Pollutant:

Cyanazine

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

Data for Various Pollutants in Southern 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. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Tulare Lake Basin)

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin Second Edition. rev. Jan 2004

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:

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Cross Creek at Highway 99 (Revised) - 558CCRSP4]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 8/7/2006-6/17/2009.

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	85890	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

Pollutant:	Cyfluthrin
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of 0 water samples exceed the guideline. Zero of zero sediment 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 0 water samples exceed the guideline. Zero of zero sediment samples exceed the evaluation guideline. This sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

State Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 85890, Cyfluthrin	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

LOE ID:

62051

Pollutant:

Cyfluthrin

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

The sample was below both the reporting limit (2 ng/g dry weight) and the organic carbon-normalized evaluation guideline value (1.1 ug/g OC) and could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the listing policy.

Data Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

The evaluation guideline value for cyfluthrin, 0.11 ug/g OC, is one-tenth of the median lethal concentration for H. azteca (LC50; 1.1 ug/g OC). The LC50 (1.1 ug/g OC) is the geometric mean of OC-normalized LC50 values for cyfluthrin from Amweg et al. (2005).

Guideline Reference:

Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence was collected at one monitoring site [ Cross Creek - Rd. 60 and Hwy 99558CCR010]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on 4/29/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 85890, Cyfluthrin	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

LOE ID:

62050

Pollutant:

Cyfluthrin

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Cyfluthrin, total. One sample was 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 Southern San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2009.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

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 Cyfluthrin, 0.00005 ug/L, is not exceeded more than once every three years on the average (UC Davis Aquatic Life Criterion).

Guideline Reference:

Aquatic life water quality criteria derived via the UC Davis method: ll. Pyrethroid insecticides. Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 216:51-103.

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Cross Creek at Highway 99 (Revised) - 558CCRSP4]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on a single day 6/17/2009.

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	85891	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

Pollutant:	Cyhalothrin, Lambda
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.6 two line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of 0 water samples exceed the guideline. Zero of zero sediment samples exceed the guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. 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 0 water samples exceed the guideline. Zero of zero sediment samples exceed the guideline. This sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

State Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 85891, Cyhalothrin, Lambda	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

LOE ID:

62052

Pollutant:

Cyhalothrin, Lambda

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Two water samples were collected from Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties) were analyzed for Cyhalothrin, lambda. The method detection limits for the samples were greater than the water quality criterion; therefore, the sample results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.

Data Reference:

Data for Various Pollutants in Southern San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2009.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

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 Cyhalothrin, 0.0005 ug/L, is not exceeded more than once every three years on the average (UC Davis Aquatic Life Criterion).

Guideline Reference:

Aquatic life water quality criteria derived via the UC Davis method: ll. Pyrethroid insecticides. Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 216:51-103.

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties) was collected at one monitoring site [Cross Creek at Highway 99 (Revised) - 558CCRSP4]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on two dates: 7/19/2006 and 6/17/2009

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):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 85891, Cyhalothrin, Lambda	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

LOE ID:

78661

Pollutant:

Cyhalothrin, Lambda

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed ILRP data for Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for cyhalothrin, lambda. The two available samples were not used in the assessment because the OC-normalized laboratory data reporting limit was above the objective, the available OC-normalized samples were below the laboratory data reporting limit, 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 Southern San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2009.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin Second Edition. rev. Jan 2004

Evaluation Guideline:

The evaluation guideline value for cyhalothrin, lambda in sediment (0.044 ug/g OC), is one-tenth of the geometric mean (0.44 ug/g OC) of the organic carbon-normalized (OC) LC50 values for Hyalella azteca, an amphipod crustacean. The LC50 values were derived by Amweg et al. (2005).

Guideline Reference:

Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence was collected at one monitoring site [Cross Creek at Highway 99 (Revised) - 558CCRSP4].

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected from 4/21/2009 to 10/14/2009.

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):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 85891, Cyhalothrin, Lambda	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

LOE ID:

62053

Pollutant:

Cyhalothrin, Lambda

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

The sample was below both the reporting limit (1 ng/g dry weight) and the organic carbon-normalized evaluation guideline value (0.44 ug/g OC) and could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the listing policy.

Data Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

The evaluation guideline value for lambda-cyhalothrin, 0.044 ug/g OC, is one-tenth of the median lethal concentration for H. azteca (LC50; 0.44 ug/g OC). The LC50 (0.44 ug/g OC) is the geometric mean of OC-normalized LC50 values for lambda-cyhalothrin from Amweg et al. (2005).

Guideline Reference:

Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence was collected at one monitoring site [ Cross Creek - Rd. 60 and Hwy 99558CCR010]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on 4/29/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan


DECISION ID	85892	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

Pollutant:	Cypermethrin
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.6 two line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of 0 water samples exceed the evaluation guideline. Zero of one sediment sample exceeds 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 0 water samples exceed the evaluation guideline. Zero of one sediment sample exceeds the evaluation guideline. This sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

State Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 85892, Cypermethrin	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

LOE ID:

62055

Pollutant:

Cypermethrin

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

The sample was not assessed because, after the laboratory method detection limit result was organic carbon-normalized, the result was above the evaluation guideline and, therefore the result could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.

Data Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

The evaluation guideline value for cypermethrin, 0.03 ug/g OC, is one-tenth of the median lethal concentration for H. azteca (LC50; 0.3 ug/g OC). The LC50 is the geometric mean of OC-normalized LC50 values for cypermethrin from Maund et al. (2002).

Guideline Reference:

Partitioning, bioavailability, and toxicity of the pyrethroid insecticide cypermethrin in sediments. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 21:9-15

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence was collected at one monitoring site [ Cross Creek - Rd. 60 and Hwy 99558CCR010]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on 4/29/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 85892, Cypermethrin	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

LOE ID:

62054

Pollutant:

Cypermethrin

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Cypermethrin, total. One sample was 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 Southern San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2009.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

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 Cypermethrin, 0.0002 ug/L, or the 1-hour average concentration, 0.001 ug/L, is not exceeded more than once every three years on the average (UC Davis Aquatic Life Criterion).

Guideline Reference:

Aquatic life water quality criteria derived via the UC Davis method: ll. Pyrethroid insecticides. Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 216:51-103.

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Cross Creek at Highway 99 (Revised) - 558CCRSP4]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on a single day 6/17/2009.

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):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 85892, Cypermethrin	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

LOE ID:

78777

Pollutant:

Cypermethrin

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed ILRP data for Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for cypermethrin. The two available samples were not used in the assessment because the OC-normalized laboratory data reporting limit was above the objective, the available OC-normalized samples were below the laboratory data reporting limit, 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 Southern San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2009.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin Second Edition. rev. Jan 2004

Evaluation Guideline:

The evaluation guideline value for cypermethrin in sediment (0.03 ug/g OC), is one-tenth of the geometric mean (0.3 ug/g OC) of the organic carbon-normalized (OC) LC50 values for Hyalella azteca, an amphipod crustacean. The LC50 values were derived by Maund et al. (2002).

Guideline Reference:

Partitioning, bioavailability, and toxicity of the pyrethroid insecticide cypermethrin in sediments. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 21:9-15

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence was collected at one monitoring site [Cross Creek at Highway 99 (Revised) - 558CCRSP4].

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected from 4/21/2009 to 10/14/2009.

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	88687	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

Pollutant:	DDD (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane)
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the 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 one samples exceed the evaluation guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the 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 the one samples exceed the 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 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 the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

State Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 88687, DDD (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane)	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

LOE ID:

62056

Pollutant:

DDD (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

The sample result did not exceed the evaluation guideline value (28.0 ug/Kg dry weight).

Data Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

In freshwater sediments, the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for the sum of DDD (o,p' + p,p') is 28.0 ug/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).

Guideline Reference:

Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence was collected at one monitoring site [ Cross Creek - Rd. 60 and Hwy 99558CCR010]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on 4/29/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan


DECISION ID	85783	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

Pollutant:	DDE (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene)
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.6 two 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 1 sample exceeds the guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of 1 sample exceeds the 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 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 85783, DDE (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene)	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

LOE ID:

62057

Pollutant:

DDE (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

The sample result did not exceed the evaluation guideline value (31.3 ug/Kg dry weight).

Data Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

In freshwater sediments, the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for the sum of DDE is 31.3 ug/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).

Guideline Reference:

Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence was collected at one monitoring site [ Cross Creek - Rd. 60 and Hwy 99558CCR010]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on 4/29/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan


DECISION ID	88395	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

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 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 one samples exceed the evaluation guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the 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 the one samples exceed the 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 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 the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

State Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 88395, DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

LOE ID:

62058

Pollutant:

DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

The sample result did not exceed the evaluation guideline value (62.9 ug/Kg dry weight).

Data Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

In freshwater sediments, the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for the sum of DDT is 62.9 ug/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).

Guideline Reference:

Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence was collected at one monitoring site [ Cross Creek - Rd. 60 and Hwy 99558CCR010]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on 4/29/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan


DECISION ID	88472	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

Pollutant:	Dacthal
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the three 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 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 the three samples exceed the 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 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 the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

State Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 88472, Dacthal	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

LOE ID:

79244

Pollutant:

Dacthal

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

State Water Board staff assessed ILRP data for Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 3 samples exceed the criterion for Dacthal.

Data Reference:

Data for Various Pollutants in Southern San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2009.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

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:

According to the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the freshwater aquatic life 1/10th LC50 for Dacthal is 660 ug/L.

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Cross Creek at Highway 99 (Revised) - 558CCRSP4]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 12/15/2008-6/17/2009.

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	85837	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

Pollutant:	Deltamethrin
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.6 two line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of 1 sample exceeds the guideline in water and 0 of 0 samples exceed the guideline in sediment. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of 1 sample exceeds the guideline in water and 0 of 0 samples exceed the guideline in sediment and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

State Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 85837, Deltamethrin	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

LOE ID:

62060

Pollutant:

Deltamethrin

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

The sample was below both the reporting limit (2 ng/g dry weight) and the organic carbon-normalized evaluation guideline value (0.79 ug/g OC) and could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the listing policy.

Data Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

The evaluation guideline value for deltamethrin, 0.79 ug/g OC, is the median lethal concentration for H. azteca (LC50). The LC50 (0.79 ug/g OC) is the geometric mean of OC-normalized LC50 values for deltamethrin from Amweg et al. (2005).

Guideline Reference:

Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence was collected at one monitoring site [ Cross Creek - Rd. 60 and Hwy 99558CCR010]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on 4/29/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 85837, Deltamethrin	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

LOE ID:

62059

Pollutant:

Deltamethrin

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

Data for Various Pollutants in Southern San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2009.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

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 Deltamethrin, 0.02 ug/L, is the maximum acceptable toxicicant concentration (MATC) for Pimephales promelas (Fathead minnow); USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database.

Guideline Reference:

Data for Various Pollutants in Southern San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2009.

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Cross Creek at Highway 99 (Revised) - 558CCRSP4]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on a single day 6/17/2009.

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	85838	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

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(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of 4 water samples exceed the guideline. Zero of zero sediment 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 4 water samples exceed the guideline. Zero of zero sediment samples exceed the evaluation guideline. This sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

State Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 85838, Diazinon	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

LOE ID:

62068

Pollutant:

Diazinon

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceed the criterion for Diazinon. 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:

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, Tulare Lake Basin)

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin Second Edition. rev. Jan 2004

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 Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Cross Creek at Highway 99 (Revised) - 558CCRSP4]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 7/19/2006-6/17/2009.

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):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 85838, Diazinon	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

LOE ID:

62067

Pollutant:

Diazinon

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

The sample was below both the reporting limit (5 ng/g dry weight) and the organic carbon-normalized evaluation guideline value (11 ug/g OC) and could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the listing policy.

Data Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

The evaluation guideline value for diazinon, 1.1 ug/g OC, is one-tenth of the median lethal concentration for H. azteca (LC50; 11 ug/g OC). The LC50 (11 ug/g OC) is the geometric mean of OC-normalized LC50 values for diazinon (Ding et al. 2011).

Guideline Reference:

Toxicity of Sediment-Associated Pesticides to Chironomus dilutus and Hyalella azteca. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 61:83¿92.

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence was collected at one monitoring site [ Cross Creek - Rd. 60 and Hwy 99558CCR010]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on 4/29/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan


DECISION ID	85839	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

Pollutant:	Dichlorvos
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of 6 samples exceed the guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. 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 6 samples exceed the 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 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 85839, Dichlorvos	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

LOE ID:

79253

Pollutant:

Dichlorvos

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

Data for Various Pollutants in Southern San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2009.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

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:

According to the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the freshwater aquatic life MATC for dichlorvos is 7.2 ug/L.

Guideline Reference:

Data for Various Pollutants in Southern San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2009.

Spatial Representation:

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 1/10/2005-6/17/2009.

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	88473	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

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 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 four 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 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 the four samples exceed the 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 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 the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

State Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 88473, Dicofol	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

LOE ID:

62069

Pollutant:

Dicofol

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceed the criterion for Dicofol.

Data Reference:

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, Tulare Lake Basin)

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin Second Edition. rev. Jan 2004

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:

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Cross Creek at Highway 99 (Revised) - 558CCRSP4]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 7/19/2006-6/17/2009.

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	88474	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

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. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the one samples exceed the evaluation guideline for WARM, and zero of the three samples exceed the water quality criteria for WARM. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of the one samples exceed the evaluation guideline for WARM, and zero of the three samples exceed the water quality criteria for WARM and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples 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 the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

State Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 88474, Dieldrin	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

LOE ID:

62070

Pollutant:

Dieldrin

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

The sample result did not exceed the evaluation guideline value (61.8 ug/Kg dry weight).

Data Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

In freshwater sediments, the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for dieldrin is 61.8 ug/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).

Guideline Reference:

Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence was collected at one monitoring site [ Cross Creek - Rd. 60 and Hwy 99558CCR010]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on 4/29/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 88474, Dieldrin	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

LOE ID:

62071

Pollutant:

Dieldrin

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 3 samples exceed the criterion for Dieldrin. 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 Southern San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2009.

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 Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Cross Creek at Highway 99 (Revised) - 558CCRSP4]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 1/3/2006-6/17/2009.

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	85840	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

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(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 7 samples exceed the guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. 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 7 samples exceed the 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 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 85840, Dimethoate	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

LOE ID:

62077

Pollutant:

Dimethoate

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 7 samples exceed the criterion for Dimethoate. Seven 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 Southern 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. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Tulare Lake Basin)

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin Second Edition. rev. Jan 2004

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:

Data for Various Pollutants in Southern San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2009.

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Cross Creek at Highway 99 (Revised) - 558CCRSP4]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 1/3/2006-6/17/2009.

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	88475	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

Pollutant:	Dinoseb
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the four 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 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 the four samples exceed the 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 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 the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

State Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 88475, Dinoseb	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

LOE ID:

79326

Pollutant:

Dinoseb

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

State Water Board staff assessed ILRP data for Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceed the criterion for Dinoseb.

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

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 dinoseb, 4.4 ug/L, is one-tenth of the median lethal concentration (LC50). The LC50 for dinoseb is 44 ug/L (USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database).

Guideline Reference:

Data for Various Pollutants in Southern San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2009.

Spatial Representation:

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 1/10/2005-4/12/2006.

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	88550	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

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 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 one samples exceed the evaluation guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the 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 the one samples exceed the 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 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 the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

State Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 88550, Disulfoton	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

LOE ID:

62078

Pollutant:

Disulfoton

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Disulfoton. Five 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:

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, Tulare Lake Basin)

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin Second Edition. rev. Jan 2004

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:

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Cross Creek at Highway 99 (Revised) - 558CCRSP4]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 1/3/2006-6/17/2009.

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	85893	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

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(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. One of 9 samples exceed the guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. One of 9 samples exceed the 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 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 85893, Diuron	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

LOE ID:

78564

Pollutant:

Diuron

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Aquatic Life Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties) to determine beneficial use support. One of the nine sample results were detected at levels above 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 Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties) was collected at two monitoring sites: [Cross Creek at Highway 99 (Revised) - 558CCRSP4; Cross Creek at Highway 99 (Previous) - 558CCHSP4].

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected approximately quarterly between 1/10/2005 and 6/17/2009.

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	85894	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

Pollutant:	Endosulfan sulfate
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of 8 samples exceed the guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. 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 8 samples exceed the 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 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 85894, Endosulfan sulfate	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

LOE ID:

79361

Pollutant:

Endosulfan sulfate

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

State Water Board staff assessed ILRP data for Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 8 samples exceed the criterion for Endosulfan sulfate.

Data Reference:

Data for Various Pollutants in Southern San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2009.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

The endosulfan sulfate criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.028 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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:

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 1/10/2005-6/17/2009.

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	88551	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

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. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the one water samples exceed the evaluation guideline for WARM, and zero of the one sediment samples exceed the water quality criteria for WARM. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of the one water samples exceed the evaluation guideline for WARM, and zero of the one sediment samples exceed the water quality criteria for WARM and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples 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 the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

State Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 88551, Endrin	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

LOE ID:

62080

Pollutant:

Endrin

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Endrin. Five 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 Southern San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2009.

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 Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Cross Creek at Highway 99 (Revised) - 558CCRSP4]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 1/3/2006-6/17/2009.

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):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 88551, Endrin	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

LOE ID:

62079

Pollutant:

Endrin

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

The sample result did not exceed the evaluation guideline value (207 ug/Kg dry weight).

Data Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

In freshwater sediments, the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for endrin is 207 ug/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).

Guideline Reference:

Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence was collected at one monitoring site [ Cross Creek - Rd. 60 and Hwy 99558CCR010]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on 4/29/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan


DECISION ID	85896	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

Pollutant:	Esfenvalerate/Fenvalerate
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single 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 0 samples exceed the guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. 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 0 samples exceed the 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 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 85896, Esfenvalerate/Fenvalerate	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

LOE ID:

62087

Pollutant:

Esfenvalerate/Fenvalerate

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

The sample was below both the reporting limit (1 ng/g dry weight) and the organic carbon-normalized evaluation guideline value (1.5 ug/g OC) and could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the listing policy.

Data Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

The evaluation guideline value for esfenvalerate/fenvalerate, 0.15 ug/g OC, is one-tenth of the median lethal concentration for H. azteca (LC50; 1.5 ug/g OC). The LC50 (1.5 ug/g OC) is the geometric mean of OC-normalized LC50 values for esfenvalerate/fenvalerate from Amweg et al. (2005).

Guideline Reference:

Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence was collected at one monitoring site [ Cross Creek - Rd. 60 and Hwy 99558CCR010]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on 4/29/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan


DECISION ID	85947	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

Pollutant:	Fenpropathrin
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of 1 water sample exceeds the guideline. Zero of zero water sample exceeds the guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of 1 water sample exceeds the guideline. Zero of zero water sample exceeds the guideline. This sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

State Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 85947, Fenpropathrin	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

LOE ID:

62089

Pollutant:

Fenpropathrin

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

Data for Various Pollutants in Southern San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2009.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

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 fenpropathrin, 0.22 ug/L, is one-tenth of the median lethal concentration (LC50 = 2.2 ug/L) for Lepomis macrochirus (Bluegill sunfish). (USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database)

Guideline Reference:

Data for Various Pollutants in Southern San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2009.

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Cross Creek at Highway 99 (Revised) - 558CCRSP4]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on a single day 6/17/2009.

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):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 85947, Fenpropathrin	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

LOE ID:

78812

Pollutant:

Fenpropathrin

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed ILRP data for Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for fenpropathrin. The two available samples were not used in the assessment because the OC-normalized laboratory data reporting limit was above the objective, the available OC-normalized samples were below the laboratory data reporting limit, and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin Second Edition. rev. Jan 2004

Evaluation Guideline:

The evaluation guideline value for fenpropathrin in sediment (0.12 ug/g OC), is one-tenth of the geometric mean (1.2 ug/g OC) of the organic carbon-normalized (OC) LC50 values for Hyalella azteca, an amphipod crustacean. The LC50 values were derived by Ding et al. (2011).

Guideline Reference:

Toxicity of Sediment-Associated Pesticides to Chironomus dilutus and Hyalella azteca. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 61:83¿92.

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence was collected at one monitoring site [Cross Creek at Hwy 99 (Revised) 558CCRSP4].

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected from 4/21/2009 to 10/14/2009.

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):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 85947, Fenpropathrin	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

LOE ID:

62090

Pollutant:

Fenpropathrin

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

The sample was below both the reporting limit (2 ng/g dry weight) and the organic carbon-normalized evaluation guideline value (1 ug/g OC) and could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the listing policy.

Data Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

The evaluation guideline value for fenpropathrin, 0.1 ug/g OC, is one-tenth of the median lethal concentration for H. azteca (LC50; one ug/g OC). The LC50 is the geometric mean of OC-normalized LC50 values for fenpropathrin (Ding et al. 2011).

Guideline Reference:

Toxicity of Sediment-Associated Pesticides to Chironomus dilutus and Hyalella azteca. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 61:83¿92.

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence was collected at one monitoring site [ Cross Creek - Rd. 60 and Hwy 99558CCR010]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on 4/29/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan


DECISION ID	85948	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

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(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 4 samples exceed the guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. 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 4 samples exceed the 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 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 85948, Glyphosate	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

LOE ID:

62095

Pollutant:

Glyphosate

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

Data for Various Pollutants in Southern 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. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Tulare Lake Basin)

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin Second Edition. rev. Jan 2004

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:

Data for Various Pollutants in Southern San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2009.

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Cross Creek at Highway 99 (Revised) - 558CCRSP4]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 7/19/2006-6/17/2009.

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	88553	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

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 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 zero samples exceed the water quality criteria. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of the zero samples exceed the water quality criteria 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 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 the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

State Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 88553, Heptachlor	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

LOE ID:

62096

Pollutant:

Heptachlor

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

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 Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Cross Creek at Highway 99 (Revised) - 558CCRSP4]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 12/15/2008-6/17/2009.

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	88626	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

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 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 zero samples exceed the water quality criteria. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of the zero samples exceed the water quality criteria 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 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 the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

State Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 88626, Heptachlor epoxide	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

LOE ID:

62097

Pollutant:

Heptachlor epoxide

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

Data for Various Pollutants in Southern San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2009.

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 Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Cross Creek at Highway 99 (Revised) - 558CCRSP4]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 12/15/2008-6/17/2009.

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	95248	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

Pollutant:	Indicator Bacteria
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. One of three water samples analyzed for fecal coliform exceed the water quality objective for water contact recreation. One of two water samples analyzed for E. coli exceed the water quality objective for water contact recreation. Zero of one water samples analyzed for E. coli exceed the evaluation for non-contact recreation. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. One of three water samples analyzed for fecal coliform exceed the water quality objective for water contact recreation and one of two water samples analyzed for E. coli exceed the water quality objective for water contact recreation and zero of one water samples analyzed for E. coli exceed the evaluation for non-contact recreation, and these sample counts are insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. 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 not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

State Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 95248, Indicator Bacteria	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

LOE ID:

7536

Pollutant:

Escherichia coli (E. coli)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Non-Contact Recreation

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Not Specified

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Zero of the 1 sample collected by the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program exceeded the evaluation objective for E.Coli Bacteria.

Data Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

E.Coli Bacteria levels should not exceed 409 MPN/100 mL in any single sample (USEPA E.Coli Guideline)

Guideline Reference:

Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria - 1986. EPA440/5-84-002

Spatial Representation:

The sample was collected at Cross Creek - Rd. 60 and Hwy 99.

Temporal Representation:

The sample was collected from Jun 24 2003

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Monitoring was conducted in accordance with the State Water Resources Control Board's Quality Assurance Program Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 95248, Indicator Bacteria	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

LOE ID:

62088

Pollutant:

Fecal Coliform

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Water Contact Recreation

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PATHOGEN MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties) 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 Southern San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2009.

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, Central Valley Region, Tulare Lake Basin)

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin Second Edition. rev. Jan 2004

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Cross Creek at Highway 99 (Revised) - 558CCRSP4]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 12/15/2008-6/17/2009.

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):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 95248, Indicator Bacteria	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

LOE ID:

62081

Pollutant:

Escherichia coli (E. coli)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Water Contact Recreation

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PATHOGEN MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 1 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Escherichia coli.

Data Reference:

Data for Various Pollutants in Southern San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2009.

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, Tulare Lake Basin)

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin Second Edition. rev. Jan 2004

Evaluation Guideline:

The USEPA recommended objective for single sample maximum allowable density of E. coli in freshwater designated beach areas is 235 MPN/100mL.

Guideline Reference:

Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria - 1986. EPA440/5-84-002

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Cross Creek at Highway 99 (Revised) - 558CCRSP4]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on a single day 2/22/2009.

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):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 95248, Indicator Bacteria	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

LOE ID:

7523

Pollutant:

Escherichia coli (E. coli)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Water Contact Recreation

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Not Specified

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

0 of the 1 sample collected by the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program exceeded the evaluation objective for E.Coli Bacteria.

Data Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

E.Coli Bacteria levels should not exceed 235 MPN/100 mL in any single sample (USEPA E.Coli Guideline)

Guideline Reference:

Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria - 1986. EPA440/5-84-002

Spatial Representation:

The sample was collected at Cross Creek - Rd. 60 and Hwy 99.

Temporal Representation:

The sample was collected from Jun 24 2003

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Monitoring was conducted in accordance with the State Water Resources Control Board's Quality Assurance Program Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program.

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	85129	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

Pollutant:	Lead
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of 3 samples exceed the objective in water and 0 of 1 sample exceeds the guideline in sediment. 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 3 samples exceed the objective in water and 0 of 1 sample exceeds the guideline in sediment and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

State Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 85129, Lead	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

LOE ID:

62098

Pollutant:

Lead

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

SWAMP data indicates that 0 of the sample results exceed the evaluation guideline value for Lead.

Data Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

In freshwater sediments, the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for lead is 128 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).

Guideline Reference:

Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence was collected at one monitoring site [ Cross Creek - Rd. 60 and Hwy 99558CCR010]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on 4/29/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 85129, Lead	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

LOE ID:

62099

Pollutant:

Lead

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed AgWaiver data for Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 3 samples exceed the criterion for Lead.

Data Reference:

Data for Various Pollutants in Southern San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2009.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

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 Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Cross Creek at Highway 99 (Revised) - 558CCRSP4]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 12/15/2008-6/17/2009.

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	88627	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

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. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the one sediment samples exceed the evaluation guideline for WARM, and zero of the one water samples exceed the water quality criteria for WARM. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of the one sediment samples exceed the evaluation guideline for WARM, and zero of the one water samples exceed the water quality criteria for WARM and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples 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 the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

State Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 88627, Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH)	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

LOE ID:

62106

Pollutant:

Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 3 samples exceed the criterion for HCH, gamma. 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 Southern San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2009.

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 Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Cross Creek at Highway 99 (Revised) - 558CCRSP4]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 1/3/2006-6/17/2009.

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):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 88627, Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH)	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

LOE ID:

62100

Pollutant:

Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

One sediment sample was collected and analyzed for the SWAMP.

Data Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

In freshwater sediments, the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for Lindane (gamma-HCH) is 4.99 ug/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).

Guideline Reference:

Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence was collected at one monitoring site [ Cross Creek - Rd. 60 and Hwy 99 - 558CCR010]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on 4/29/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan


DECISION ID	88628	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

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 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 six 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 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 the six samples exceed the 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 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 the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

State Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 88628, Linuron	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

LOE ID:

62107

Pollutant:

Linuron

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Linuron.

Data Reference:

Data for Various Pollutants in Southern 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. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Tulare Lake Basin)

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin Second Edition. rev. Jan 2004

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:

Data for Various Pollutants in Southern San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2009.

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Cross Creek at Highway 99 (Revised) - 558CCRSP4]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 1/3/2006-6/17/2009.

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	85131	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

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(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 0 samples exceed the guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. 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 0 samples exceed the 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 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 85131, Malathion	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

LOE ID:

62108

Pollutant:

Malathion

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

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, Tulare Lake Basin)

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin Second Edition. rev. Jan 2004

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:

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Cross Creek at Highway 99 (Revised) - 558CCRSP4]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 12/15/2008-6/17/2009.

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	85184	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

Pollutant:	Mercury
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.6 two 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 1 sample exceeds the guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of 1 sample exceeds the 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 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 85184, Mercury	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

LOE ID:

62109

Pollutant:

Mercury

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

SWAMP data indicates that 0 of the sample results exceed the evaluation guideline value for Mercury.

Data Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

In freshwater sediments, the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for mercury is 1.06 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).

Guideline Reference:

Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence was collected at one monitoring site [ Cross Creek - Rd. 60 and Hwy 99558CCR010]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on 4/29/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan


DECISION ID	88766	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

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 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 four 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 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 the four samples exceed the 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 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 the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

State Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 88766, Methidathion	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

LOE ID:

62110

Pollutant:

Methidathion

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

Data for Various Pollutants in Southern 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. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Tulare Lake Basin)

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin Second Edition. rev. Jan 2004

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:

Data for Various Pollutants in Southern San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2009.

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Cross Creek at Highway 99 (Revised) - 558CCRSP4]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 7/19/2006-6/17/2009

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	88767	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

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 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 six 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 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 the six samples exceed the 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 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 the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

State Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 88767, Methiocarb	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

LOE ID:

62117

Pollutant:

Methiocarb

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Methiocarb.

Data Reference:

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, Tulare Lake Basin)

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin Second Edition. rev. Jan 2004

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:

Data for Various Pollutants in Southern San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2009.

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Cross Creek at Highway 99 (Revised) - 558CCRSP4]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 1/3/2006-6/17/2009.

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	85187	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

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(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 3 samples exceed the guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. 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 3 samples exceed the 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 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 85187, Methomyl	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

LOE ID:

62118

Pollutant:

Methomyl

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 3 samples exceed the criterion for Methomyl.

Data Reference:

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, Tulare Lake Basin)

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin Second Edition. rev. Jan 2004

Evaluation Guideline:

The Basin Plan states: "Where valid testing has developed 96-hour LC50 values for aquatic organisms..., the Board will consider one tenth of this value for the most sensitive species tested as the upper limit (daily maximum) for the protection of aquatic life... or [O]ther available information on the pesticide..." The criteria continuous concentration for Methomyl in the San Joaquin River system is 0.5 ug/L (4-day average). (CDFG, 1996)

Guideline Reference:

Data for Various Pollutants in Southern San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2009.

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Cross Creek at Highway 99 (Revised) - 558CCRSP4]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 12/15/2008-6/17/2009.

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	88768	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

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 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 six 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 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 the six samples exceed the 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 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 the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

State Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 88768, Methoxychlor	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

LOE ID:

62119

Pollutant:

Methoxychlor

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

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 Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Cross Creek at Highway 99 (Revised) - 558CCRSP4]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 1/3/2006-6/17/2009.

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	88842	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

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. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the zero sediment samples exceed the evaluation guideline for COLD, and zero of the zero water samples exceed the evaluation guideline for COLD. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of the zero sediment samples exceed the evaluation guideline for COLD, and zero of the zero water samples exceed the evaluation guideline for COLD and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples 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 the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

State Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 88842, Methyl Parathion	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

LOE ID:

62120

Pollutant:

Methyl Parathion

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

Data for Various Pollutants in Southern San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2009.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

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 Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Cross Creek at Highway 99 (Revised) - 558CCRSP4]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on a single day 6/17/2009.

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):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 88842, Methyl Parathion	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

LOE ID:

62121

Pollutant:

Methyl Parathion

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

The sample was below both the reporting limit (10 ng/g dry weight) and the organic carbon-normalized evaluation guideline value (6 ug/g OC) and could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the listing policy.

Data Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

The evaluation guideline value for methyl parathion, 0.6 ug/g OC, is one-tenth of the median lethal concentration for H. azteca (LC50; 6 ug/g OC). The LC50 is the geometric mean of OC-normalized LC50 values for methyl parathion (Ding et al. 2011).

Guideline Reference:

Toxicity of Sediment-Associated Pesticides to Chironomus dilutus and Hyalella azteca. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 61:83¿92.

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence was collected at one monitoring site [ Cross Creek - Rd. 60 and Hwy 99558CCR010]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on 4/29/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan


DECISION ID	88843	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

Pollutant:	Metolachlor
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the three 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 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 the three samples exceed the 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 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 the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

State Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 88843, Metolachlor	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

LOE ID:

62126

Pollutant:

Metolachlor

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

Data for Various Pollutants in Southern 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. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Tulare Lake Basin)

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin Second Edition. rev. Jan 2004

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 Metolachlor, 10 ug/L, is an EC50 for Selenastrum capricornutum (Green algae); USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database.

Guideline Reference:

Data for Various Pollutants in Southern San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2009.

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Cross Creek at Highway 99 (Revised) - 558CCRSP4]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 12/15/2008-6/17/2009.

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	85242	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

Pollutant:	Metribuzin
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of 4 samples exceed the guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. 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 4 samples exceed the 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 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 85242, Metribuzin	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

LOE ID:

62127

Pollutant:

Metribuzin

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

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, Tulare Lake Basin)

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin Second Edition. rev. Jan 2004

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 Metribuzin, 8.09 ug/L, is an EC50 for Selenastrum capricornutum (Green algae). (USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database)

Guideline Reference:

Data for Various Pollutants in Southern San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2009.

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Cross Creek at Highway 99 (Revised) - 558CCRSP4]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 8/7/2006-6/17/2009.

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	88844	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

Pollutant:	Mirex
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the three 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 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 the three samples exceed the 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 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 the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

State Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 88844, Mirex	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

LOE ID:

79307

Pollutant:

Mirex

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

State Water Board staff assessed ILRP data for Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 3 samples exceed the criterion for Mirex.

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

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 Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Cross Creek at Highway 99 (Revised) - 558CCRSP4]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 12/15/2008-6/17/2009.

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	88845	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

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 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 three 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 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 the three samples exceed the 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 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 the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

State Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 88845, Molinate	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

LOE ID:

62128

Pollutant:

Molinate

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 3 samples exceed the criterion for Molinate.

Data Reference:

Data for Various Pollutants in Southern 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. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Tulare Lake Basin)

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin Second Edition. rev. Jan 2004

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:

Data for Various Pollutants in Southern San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2009.

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Cross Creek at Highway 99 (Revised) - 558CCRSP4]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 12/15/2008-6/17/2009.

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	88922	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

Pollutant:	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 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 four 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 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 the four samples exceed the 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 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 the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

State Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 88922, Monuron	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

LOE ID:

79331

Pollutant:

Monuron

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

State Water Board staff assessed ILRP data for Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceed the criterion for Monuron.

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

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 monuron, 330 ug/L, is one-tenth of the median lethal concentration (LC50). The 1/10 LC50 for monuron is 330 ug/L (USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database).

Guideline Reference:

Data for Various Pollutants in Southern San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2009.

Spatial Representation:

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 1/10/2005-4/12/2006.

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	85296	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

Pollutant:	Nickel
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of 3 samples exceed the objective in water and 0 of 1 sample exceeds the guideline in sediment. 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 3 samples exceed the guideline in water and 0 of 1 sample exceeds the guideline in sediment and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

State Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 85296, Nickel	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

LOE ID:

62136

Pollutant:

Nickel

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed AgWaiver data for Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 3 samples exceed the criterion for Nickel.

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

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 Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Cross Creek at Highway 99 (Revised) - 558CCRSP4]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 12/15/2008-6/17/2009.

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):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 85296, Nickel	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

LOE ID:

62129

Pollutant:

Nickel

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

SWAMP data indicates that 0 of the sample results exceed the evaluation guideline value for Nickel.

Data Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

In freshwater sediments, the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for nickel is 48.6 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).

Guideline Reference:

Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence was collected at one monitoring site [ Cross Creek - Rd. 60 and Hwy 99558CCR010]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on 4/29/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan


DECISION ID	71572	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

Pollutant:	Nitrate as Nitrate (NO3)
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for listing under sections 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Data is available from 1 line of evidence for this pollutant. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is not sufficient justification for placing this water segment-pollution combination on the section 303(d) list. The recommendation is based on staff findings that only 1 sample is available and a minimum of 2 is needed for evaluation under section 3.1.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	This is a decision previously approved by the State Water Resources Control Board and the USEPA. No new data were assessed by the Regional Board for the current cycle. The decision has not changed.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

State Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 71572, Nitrate as Nitrate (NO3)	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

LOE ID:

8765

Pollutant:

Nitrate as Nitrate (NO3)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Not Specified

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Zero of the 1 samples collected by the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program exceeded the evaluation guideline for Nitrate-N.

Data Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Nitrate-N levels should not to exceed 100 mg/L (USEPA National Ambient Water Quality Objective)

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The sample was collected at Cross Creek - Rd. 60 and Hwy 99.

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected from Jun 24 2003 to Jun 24 2003

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Monitoring was conducted in accordance with the State Water Resources Control Board's Quality Assurance Program Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program.

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	85351	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

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(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 2 samples exceed the guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. 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 2 samples exceed the 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 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 85351, Oryzalin	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

LOE ID:

79226

Pollutant:

Oryzalin

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

State Water Board staff assessed ILRP data for Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Oryzalin.

Data Reference:

Data for Various Pollutants in Southern San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2009.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

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:

According to the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life EC50 for Oryzalin is 15.4 ug/L.

Guideline Reference:

Revised Draft of the 2007 Review of the Monitoring Data for the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Conditional Waiver Program

Spatial Representation:

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 1/10/2005-1/3/2006.

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	75621	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

Pollutant:	Oxygen, Dissolved
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	TThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. One of the twenty-two samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. One of the twenty-two samples exceed the water quality 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 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 not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

State Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 75621, Oxygen, Dissolved	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

LOE ID:

21923

Pollutant:

Oxygen, Dissolved

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Aquatic Life Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Fifteen samples were taken from Cross Creek between 2003 and 2006. One of the fifteen samples fell below the water quality objective for minimum dissolved oxygen content in surface water.

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

From the Tulare Lake Basin Plan the (COLD) Cold Freshwater Habitat criterion is a Minimum Dissolved Oxygen content of 7mg/L.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin Second Edition. rev. Jan 2004

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from Cross Creek in Kings County.

Temporal Representation:

Samples were collected between June 2003 and August 2006. Samples were collected at monthly intervals.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Data quality: Good. Monitoring was conducted in accordance with Central Valley Water Board Monitoring and Reporting Program (order number R5-2003-0826) requirements (CVRWQCB, 2003)

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 75621, Oxygen, Dissolved	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

LOE ID:

62137

Pollutant:

Oxygen, Dissolved

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

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: None of six sample results exceed the criterion for Oxygen, Dissolved.

Data Reference:

Data for Various Pollutants in Southern San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2009.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

The minimum dissolved oxygen concentration for waters designated as COLD is 7.0 mg/L. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin)

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin Second Edition. rev. Jan 2004

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence was collected at two monitoring sites [Cross Creek at Highway 99 (Revised)-558CCRSP4 and Cross Creek at Highway 99 (Previous)-558CCHSP4].

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected approximately every two to three months between 1/3/2006 and 8/2/2007.

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):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 75621, Oxygen, Dissolved	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

LOE ID:

8763

Pollutant:

Oxygen, Dissolved

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Aquatic Life Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Not Specified

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Zero of the 1 samples collected by the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program exceeded the evaluation objective for Dissolved Oxygen.

Data Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

The Basin Plan Objective sets the minimum Dissolved Oxygen content at 5 mg/L

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The sample was collected at Cross Creek - Rd. 60 and Hwy 99.

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected from Jun 24 2003 to Jun 24 2003

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Monitoring was conducted in accordance with the State Water Resources Control Board's Quality Assurance Program Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program.

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	82664	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

Pollutant:	PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1, a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The single sediment sample was assessed for the WARM beneficial use. The sediment sample result does not exceed the evaluation guideline for WARM. The single water sample result could not be used in the assessment of the WARM beneficial use because the laboratory data reporting limit was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. The single sediment sample result does not exceed the evaluation guideline for WARM, and the single water sample result could not be assessed. This sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

State Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 82664, PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

LOE ID:

62139

Pollutant:

PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Zero of 1 sample collected for Total PCBs exceeded the evaluation guideline.

Data Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin Second Edition. rev. Jan 2004

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Waters shall not contain substances in concentrations that result in the deposition of material that causes nuisance or adversely affects beneficial uses (Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for total PCB is 676 ug/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).

Guideline Reference:

Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31

Spatial Representation:

Data were collected at the following station 558CCR010 (Cross Creek - Rd. 60 and Hwy 99).

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected on 4/29/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 82664, PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

LOE ID:

59615

Pollutant:

PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Zero of 0 samples exceeded the guideline. Sample results 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 Southern San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2009.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (CVRWQCB, 2004). The total PCB criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.014 ug/L. This value corresponds to the sum of aroclors 1242, 1254, 1221, 1232, 1248, 1260, and 1016 (California Toxics Rule, 2000).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin Second Edition. rev. Jan 2004

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples collected at station 558CCRSP4 (Cross Creek at Highway 99 (Revised)).

Temporal Representation:

Samples collected on 2/22/2009.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	85405	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

Pollutant:	Paraquat
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of 5 samples exceed the guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. 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 5 samples exceed the 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 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 85405, Paraquat	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

LOE ID:

79338

Pollutant:

Paraquat

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

State Water Board staff assessed ILRP data for Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 5 samples exceed the criterion for Paraquat.

Data Reference:

Data for Various Pollutants in Southern San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2009.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

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 paraquat is the EC50 1200 ug/L. (USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database).

Guideline Reference:

Data for Various Pollutants in Southern San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2009.

Spatial Representation:

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 8/10/2005-6/17/2009.

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	88923	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

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 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 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 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 the zero samples exceed the 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 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 the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

State Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 88923, Parathion	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

LOE ID:

62138

Pollutant:

Parathion

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

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:

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Cross Creek at Highway 99 (Revised) - 558CCRSP4]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 12/15/2008-2/22/2009.

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	85406	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

Pollutant:	Permethrin, total
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of 0 samples exceed the guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. 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 0 water samples and zero of 0 sediment samples exceed the 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 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 85406, Permethrin, total	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

LOE ID:

62140

Pollutant:

Permethrin, total

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Permethrin, Total. One sample was 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 Southern San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2009.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

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 Permethrin, 0.0002 ug/L, is not exceeded more than once every three years on the average (UC Davis Aquatic Life Criterion).

Guideline Reference:

Data for Various Pollutants in Southern San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2009.

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Cross Creek at Highway 99 (Revised) - 558CCRSP4]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on a single day 6/17/2009.

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):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 85406, Permethrin, total	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

LOE ID:

78876

Pollutant:

Permethrin, total

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed ILRP data for Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for permethrin, total. The two available samples were not used in the assessment because the OC-normalized laboratory data reporting limit was above the objective, the available OC-normalized samples were below the laboratory data reporting limit, and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin Second Edition. rev. Jan 2004

Evaluation Guideline:

The evaluation guideline value for permethrin in sediment (0.89 ug/g OC), is one-tenth of the geometric mean (8.9 ug/g OC) of the organic carbon-normalized (OC) LC50 values for Hyalella azteca, an amphipod crustacean. The LC50 values were derived by Amweg et al. (2005).

Guideline Reference:

Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence was collected at one monitoring site [Cross Creek at Highway 99 (Revised) - 558CCRSP4].

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected from 4/21/2009 to 10/14/2009.

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):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 85406, Permethrin, total	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

LOE ID:

62146

Pollutant:

Permethrin, total

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

The sample was below both the reporting limit (4 ng/g dry weight) and the organic carbon-normalized evaluation guideline value (8.9 ug/g OC) and could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the listing policy.

Data Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

The evaluation guideline value for permethrin, 0.89 ug/g OC, is one-tenth of the median lethal concentration for H. azteca (LC50; 8.9 ug/g OC). The LC50 is the geometric mean of OC-normalized LC50 values for permethrin (Amweg et al. 2005).

Guideline Reference:

Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence was collected at one monitoring site [ Cross Creek - Rd. 60 and Hwy 99558CCR010]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on 4/29/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan


DECISION ID	88924	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

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 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 four 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 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 the four samples exceed the 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 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 the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

State Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 88924, Phorate	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

LOE ID:

62147

Pollutant:

Phorate

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceed the criterion for Phorate. 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 Southern 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. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Tulare Lake Basin)

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin Second Edition. rev. Jan 2004

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:

Data for Various Pollutants in Southern San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2009.

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Cross Creek at Highway 99 (Revised) - 558CCRSP4]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 7/19/2006-6/17/2009.

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	88925	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

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 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 four 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 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 the four samples exceed the 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 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 the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

State Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 88925, Phosmet	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

LOE ID:

62148

Pollutant:

Phosmet

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceed the criterion for Phosmet.

Data Reference:

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, Tulare Lake Basin)

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin Second Edition. rev. Jan 2004

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:

Data for Various Pollutants in Southern San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2009.

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Cross Creek at Highway 99 (Revised) - 558CCRSP4]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 7/19/2006-6/17/2009.

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	89000	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

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 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 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 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 the zero samples exceed the 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 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 the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

State Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 89000, Prometryn	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

LOE ID:

62149

Pollutant:

Prometryn

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

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, Tulare Lake Basin)

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin Second Edition. rev. Jan 2004

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:

Data for Various Pollutants in Southern San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2009.

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Cross Creek at Highway 99 (Revised) - 558CCRSP4]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 12/15/2008-6/17/2009.

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	85458	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

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(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 3 samples exceed the 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 3 samples exceed the 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 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 85458, Selenium	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

LOE ID:

62158

Pollutant:

Selenium

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 3 samples exceed the criterion for Selenium.

Data Reference:

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 Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Cross Creek at Highway 99 (Revised) - 558CCRSP4]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 12/15/2008-6/17/2009.

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	85506	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

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(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 4 samples exceed the guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. 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 4 samples exceed the 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 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 85506, Simazine	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

LOE ID:

62159

Pollutant:

Simazine

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceed the criterion for Simazine.

Data Reference:

Data for Various Pollutants in Southern 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. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Tulare Lake Basin)

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin Second Edition. rev. Jan 2004

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:

Data for Various Pollutants in Southern San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2009.

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Cross Creek at Highway 99 (Revised) - 558CCRSP4]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 8/7/2006-6/17/2009.

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	85619	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

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(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 4 sample exceeds the guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. 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 4 sample exceeds the 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 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 85619, Tebuthiuron	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

LOE ID:

79232

Pollutant:

Tebuthiuron

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

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:

According to the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life EC50 for Tebuthiuron is 135 ug/L.

Guideline Reference:

Data for Various Pollutants in Southern San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2009.

Spatial Representation:

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 1/10/2005-4/12/2006.

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	89089	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

Pollutant:	Temperature, water
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. One of the three 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 section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. One of the three samples exceed the 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 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 not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

State Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 89089, Temperature, water	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

LOE ID:

62160

Pollutant:

Temperature, water

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

The natural receiving water temperature of intrastate waters shall not be altered unless it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Regional Water Board that such alteration in temperature does not adversely affect beneficial uses (Tulare Lake Basin Plans).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin Second Edition. rev. Jan 2004

Evaluation Guideline:

Inland Fishes of California (Moyle 1976) states that for rainbow trout the optimum range for growth and completion of most life stages is 13-21 degrees C (page 129).

Guideline Reference:

Inland Fishes of California (1976)

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Cross Creek at Highway 99 (Revised) - 558CCRSP4]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 12/15/2008-6/17/2009.

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	89001	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

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 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 three 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 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 the three samples exceed the 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 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 the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

State Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 89001, Thiobencarb/Bolero	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

LOE ID:

62161

Pollutant:

Thiobencarb/Bolero

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

Data for Various Pollutants in Southern 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. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Tulare Lake Basin)

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin Second Edition. rev. Jan 2004

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:

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Cross Creek at Highway 99 (Revised) - 558CCRSP4]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 12/15/2008-6/17/2009.

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	89002	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

Pollutant:	Total DDT (sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD)
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the 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 one samples exceed the evaluation guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the 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 the one samples exceed the 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 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 the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

State Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 89002, Total DDT (sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD)	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

LOE ID:

62036

Pollutant:

Total DDT (sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

The sample result did not exceed the evaluation guideline value (572 ug/Kg dry weight).

Data Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

In freshwater sediments, the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for total DDTs (sum DDT + sum DDD + sum DDE) is 572 ug/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).

Guideline Reference:

Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence was collected at one monitoring site [ Cross Creek - Rd. 60 and Hwy 99558CCR010]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on 4/29/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan


DECISION ID	89003	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

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 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 zero samples exceed the water quality criteria. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of the zero samples exceed the water quality criteria 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 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 the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

State Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 89003, Toxaphene	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

LOE ID:

62037

Pollutant:

Toxaphene

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

Data for Various Pollutants in Southern San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2009.

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 Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Cross Creek at Highway 99 (Revised) - 558CCRSP4]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 12/15/2008-6/17/2009.

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	85618	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

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 3.1 a single 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 two samples exceed the guideline for the WARM beneficial use. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of two samples exceed the guideline for WARM, and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board 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 85618, Trifluralin	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

LOE ID:

62040

Pollutant:

Trifluralin

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Trifluralin.

Data Reference:

Data for Various Pollutants in Southern 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. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Tulare Lake Basin)

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin Second Edition. rev. Jan 2004

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:

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Cross Creek at Highway 99 (Revised) - 558CCRSP4]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 2/22/2009-6/17/2009.

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	85673	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

Pollutant:	Zinc
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of 3 samples exceed the objective in water and 0 of 1 sample exceeds the guideline in sediment. 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 3 samples exceed the objective in water and 0 of 1 sample exceeds the guideline in sediment and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

State Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 85673, Zinc	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

LOE ID:

62046

Pollutant:

Zinc

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

SWAMP data indicates that 0 of the sample results exceed the evaluation guideline value for Zinc.

Data Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

In freshwater sediments, the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for zinc is 459 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).

Guideline Reference:

Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence was collected at one monitoring site [ Cross Creek - Rd. 60 and Hwy 99558CCR010]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on 4/29/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 85673, Zinc	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

LOE ID:

62047

Pollutant:

Zinc

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed AgWaiver data for Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 3 samples exceed the criterion for Zinc.

Data Reference:

Data for Various Pollutants in Southern San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2009.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

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 Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Cross Creek at Highway 99 (Revised) - 558CCRSP4]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 12/15/2008-6/17/2009.

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	71105	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

Pollutant:	pH
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Four of the twenty-one samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Four of the twenty-one samples exceed the water quality 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 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 not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

State Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 71105, pH	Region 5
Cross Creek (Kings and Tulare Counties)

LOE ID:

8764

Pollutant:

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Not Specified

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

One of the 1 samples collected by the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program exceeded the evaluation objective for pH. The exceeded results are as follows: 6/24/2003 - a sample taken at Cross Creek - Rd. 60 and Hwy 99 had a result of 9.1-.

Data Reference: