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

Supporting Information

Regional Board 5 - Central Valley Region

Water Body Name:	Rush Creek (Nevada County)
Water Body ID:	CAR5173101120110209095418
Water Body Type:	River & Stream


DECISION ID	92922	Region 5
Rush Creek (Nevada County)

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

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. One of 13 water samples exceeds the evaluation guideline for E. coli and none of the 13 water samples exceed the evaluation guideline for total coliform. 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 13 water samples exceeds the evaluation guideline for E. coli and none of the 13 water samples exceed the evaluation guideline for total coliform, 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 is 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 92922, Indicator Bacteria	Region 5
Rush Creek (Nevada County)

LOE ID:

69486

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:

One of the thirteen samples exceeded the E. coli objective.

Data Reference:

Data in Yuba: metal, 2000-2007 and conventional, 2000-2010.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Waters shall not contain chemical constituents in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Sacramento River and San Joaquin River Basins)

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

The E. coli concentration shall not exceed more than 235/100 ml. USEPA Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria - 1986.

Guideline Reference:

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

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at SYRCL monitoring station 35, Lwr Rush creek and 36, Upper Rush creek. WBID: CAR5173101120110209095418

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected approximately monthly between 2001 and 2007.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

This data was collected under the Water Monitoring Quality Assurance Project Plan for the Yuba Watershed Council Monitoring Committee. Rev 1.3. qa12

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	86785	Region 5
Rush Creek (Nevada County)

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

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

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

State Board 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 86785, Iron	Region 5
Rush Creek (Nevada County)

LOE ID:

69487

Pollutant:

Iron

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Not Recorded

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

None of the two samples exceeded the evaluation guideline of 1,000 ug/L.

Data Reference:

Data in Yuba: metal, 2000-2007 and conventional, 2000-2010.

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:

National Recommended Water Quality Criteria Continuous Concentrations are intended protect freshwater aquatic organisms from chronic exposures and are expressed as 4-day average concentrations. The evaluation guideline for Iron is 1,000 ug/L.

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected from station 36 Rush Creek (Nevada County).

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected from 2006.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Samples were collected and analyzed in accordance with Water Monitoring Quality Assurance Project Plan prepared for the Yuba Watershed Monitoring Committee (Revision 1.3) dated June 30, 2008.

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	86835	Region 5
Rush Creek (Nevada County)

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

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

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

State Board 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 86835, Nitrate	Region 5
Rush Creek (Nevada County)

LOE ID:

69488

Pollutant:

Nitrate

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

The sample collected did not exceed the water quality objective

Data Reference:

Data in Yuba: metal, 2000-2007 and conventional, 2000-2010.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin: At a minimum, water designated for MUN shall not contain concentrations of chemical constituents in excess of the MCL specified in Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations. The MCL for nitrate (as NO3) is 45 mg/L.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The sample was collected at SYRCL monitoring station 35 - Lower Rush Creek.

Temporal Representation:

The sample was collected on April 7, 2007.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

This data was collected under the Water Monitoring Quality Assurance Project Plan for the Yuba Watershed Council Monitoring Committee. qa12

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	92923	Region 5
Rush Creek (Nevada County)

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

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Seven of the 55 samples exceed the Criteria/Objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Seven of 55 samples exceeded the Criteria/Objective and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

State Board Decision Recommendation:	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 92923, Oxygen, Dissolved	Region 5
Rush Creek (Nevada County)

LOE ID:

59362

Pollutant:

Oxygen, Dissolved

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:

Seven of the 55 daily averaged samples exceeded the water quality objective for dissolved oxygen in this water body.

Data Reference:

Data for Various Pollutants at Placer County Utilities, 2005-2010.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

From the Basin Plan, the minimum level for dissolved oxygen is 7 mg/L for waters designated as COLD.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples collected at sites 35 - Lwr Rush Ck and 36 - Uppr Rush Ck.

Temporal Representation:

Samples collected between 7/9/2005 and 7/10/2010.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

CITIZEN WATER MONITORING QUALITY ASSURANCE PROJECT PLAN FOR THE YUBA WATERSHED MONITORING COMMITTEE (June 30, 2008)

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	92924	Region 5
Rush Creek (Nevada County)

Pollutant:	Specific Conductivity
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 3.2 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. Zero of the 56 samples exceed the Criteria/Objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of 56 samples exceeded the Criteria/Objective and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

State Board Decision Recommendation:	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 92924, Specific Conductivity	Region 5
Rush Creek (Nevada County)

LOE ID:

59361

Pollutant:

Specific Conductivity

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

None of the 56 daily averaged samples exceeded the water quality objective for electrical conductivity in this water body.

Data Reference:

Data for Various Pollutants at Placer County Utilities, 2005-2010.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

The secondary MCLs for electrical conductivity provide a range of values including a recommended level (900 uS/cm), upper level (1600 uS/cm) and a short-term level (2200 uS/cm). The 'recommended' level of 900 uS/cm was used as it is intended to be protective of all drinking water uses.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Secondary Maximum Contaminant Levels and Compliance. CCR Title 22 section 64449.

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples collected at sites 35 - Lwr Rush Ck and 36 - Uppr Rush Ck.

Temporal Representation:

Samples collected between 7/9/2005 and 7/10/2010.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

CITIZEN WATER MONITORING QUALITY ASSURANCE PROJECT PLAN FOR THE YUBA WATERSHED MONITORING COMMITTEE (June 30, 2008)

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	92925	Region 5
Rush Creek (Nevada County)

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 CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the 203 samples exceed the Evaluation Guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of 203 samples exceeded the Evaluation Guideline and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

State Board Decision Recommendation:	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 92925, Temperature, water	Region 5
Rush Creek (Nevada County)

LOE ID:

69489

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:

None of the 90 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for temperature in this water body (SYRCL, 2010).

Data Reference:

Data in Yuba: metal, 2000-2007 and conventional, 2000-2010.

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. In determining compliance with the water quality objectives for temperature, appropriate averaging periods may be applied provided that beneficial uses will be fully protected (Central Valley Regional Board Basin Plan, Pg. III-8.00, Water Quality Objectives).

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 lethal temperature threshold for Steelhead adult migration and holding and juvenile growth and rearing is 24 degrees Celsius. (Carter, 2008).

Guideline Reference:

Effects of Temperature, Dissolved Oxygen/Total Dissolved Gas, Ammonia, and pH on Salmonids. Implications for California's North Coast TMDLs. California Regional Water Quality Control Board, North Coast Region

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected at the following locations: SYRCL monitoring station 35, Lwr Rush Ck SYRCL monitoring station 36, Uppr Rush Ck

Temporal Representation:

Samples were collected monthly from 7/9/2005 to 7/10/2010.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

CITIZEN WATER MONITORING QUALITY ASSURANCE PROJECT PLAN FOR THE YUBA WATERSHED MONITORING COMMITTEE (June 30, 2008)

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 92925, Temperature, water	Region 5
Rush Creek (Nevada County)

LOE ID:

69490

Pollutant:

Temperature, water

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

113

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

None of the 113 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for temperature in this water body (SYRCL, 2010).

Data Reference:

Data in Yuba: metal, 2000-2007 and conventional, 2000-2010.

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 lethal temperature threshold for Steelhead adult migration and holding and juvenile growth and rearing is 24 degrees Celsius. (Carter, 2008).

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected at the following location: SYRCL monitoring station 23, Poorman Ck

Temporal Representation:

Samples were collected monthly from 10/6/2001 to 8/7/2010.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

CITIZEN WATER MONITORING QUALITY ASSURANCE PROJECT PLAN FOR THE YUBA WATERSHED MONITORING COMMITTEE (June 30, 2008)

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	92979	Region 5
Rush Creek (Nevada County)

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

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Four of the 57 samples exceed the Criteria/Objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Four of 57 samples exceeded the Criteria/Objective and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

State Board Decision Recommendation:	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 92979, pH	Region 5
Rush Creek (Nevada County)

LOE ID:

59363

Pollutant:

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:

Four of the 57 daily averaged samples exceeded the water quality objective for pH in this water body (they were below 6.5).

Data Reference:

Data for Various Pollutants at Placer County Utilities, 2005-2010.

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

From the Basin Plan, pH levels should not be lower than 6.5 or higher than 8.5.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples collected at sites 35 - Lwr Rush Ck and 36 - Uppr Rush Ck.

Temporal Representation:

Samples collected between 7/9/2005 and 7/10/2010.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

CITIZEN WATER MONITORING QUALITY ASSURANCE PROJECT PLAN FOR THE YUBA WATERSHED MONITORING COMMITTEE (June 30, 2008)

QAPP Information Reference(s):