# Final 2008 California 303(d)/305(b) Integrated Report

# Supporting Information

## Regional Board 5 - Central Valley Region

Water Body Name: | Deer Creek (Tulare County)
Water Body ID: | CAR5581000020020502134236
Water Body Type: | River & Stream

DECISION ID | 9889
Pollutant: | Ammonia
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision
Revision Status | Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant
Weight of Evidence: | "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 2 lines of evidence for this pollutant. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is not sufficient justification for placing this water segment-pollution combination on the section 303(d) list. The recommendation is based on staff findings that 0 of 5 available concentrations exceeded the CMC Guidelines for Cold Freshwater Habitat and this does not exceed the allowable frequency using Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. The recommendation is also based on staff findings that 0 of 5 available concentrations exceeded the USEPA Health Advisory for Municipal & Domestic Supply and this does not exceed the allowable frequency using Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. "
RWQCB Board Decision / Staff 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.
SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
USEPA Decision: |

Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 9889

LOE ID: | 8766
Pollutant: | Ammonia
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water
Matrix: | Water
Fraction: | None
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat
Number of Samples: | 5
Number of Exceedances: | 0
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Zero of the 5 samples collected by the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program exceeded the evaluation guideline for Ammonia.
Data Reference: | SWAMP data entered by SWRCB into BDAT database
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. This objective applies regardless of whether the toxicity is caused by a single substance or the interactive effect of multiple substances. (CRWQCB, 2006)
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board - Central Valley Region
Evaluation Guideline: | Ammonia levels should not to exceed the calculated limit. Freshwater Aquatic Life Protection (Salmonid present) Criteria Maximum Concentration (CMC) (1-hour Average (mg N/L)) calculated based on the following formula: CMC = (0.275/(1 + 107.204-pH)) + (39.0/(1 + 10pH-7.204)) which incorporates pH (US EPA, 2005: Appendix C)
Guideline Reference: | 1999 Update of Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Ammonia
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected at Deer Creek. Samples were collected at Deer Creek - fountain springs. Samples were collected at Deer Creek - Mtn rd 120.
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected from June 24, 2003 to May 19, 2004.
Environmental Conditions: |
QAPP Information: | Monitoring was conducted in accordance with the State Water Resources Control Board's Quality Assurance Program Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program.
QAPP Information Reference(s):
LOE ID: | 20925
Pollutant: | Ammonia
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water
Matrix: | Water
Fraction: | None
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply
Number of Samples: | 5
Number of Exceedances: | 0
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Zero of the 5 samples collected by the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program exceeded the evaluation objective for Ammonia.
Data Reference: | SWAMP data entered by SWRCB into BDAT database
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. This objective applies regardless of whether the toxicity is caused by a single substance or the interactive effect of multiple substances. (CRWQCB, 2006)
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board - Central Valley Region
Evaluation Guideline: | Ammonia levels should not exceed 30 mg/L (USEPA Health Advisory).
Guideline Reference: | 2006 edition of the drinking water standards and health advisories. EPA 822-R-03-013
| Compilation of Water Quality Goals
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected at Deer Creek. Samples were collected at Deer Creek - fountain springs. Samples were collected at Deer Creek - Mtn rd 120.
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected from June 24, 2003 to May 19, 2004.
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 | 9890
Pollutant: | Boron
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision
Revision Status | Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant
Weight of Evidence: | This pollutant is being considered for listing under sections 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Data is available from 1 line of evidence for this pollutant. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is not sufficient justification for placing this water segment-pollution combination on the section 303(d) list. The recommendation is based on staff findings that 0 of 5 available concentrations exceeded the water quality objective and this does not exceed the allowable frequency using Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Table 3.1 of the listing policy recommends listing if a sample size of 5 has 2 or more samples that exceed the evaluation criteria. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
RWQCB Board Decision / Staff 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.
SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
USEPA Decision: |

Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 9890

LOE ID: | 20932
Pollutant: | Boron
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water
Matrix: | Water
Fraction: | None
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply
Number of Samples: | 5
Number of Exceedances: | 0
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | None of the 5 samples collected by the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program exceeded the evaluation objective of 1,000 ug/L for boron
Data Reference: | SWAMP data entered by SWRCB into BDAT database
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. This objective applies regardless of whether the toxicity is caused by a single substance or the interactive effect of multiple substances. (CRWQCB, 2006)
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board - Central Valley Region
Evaluation Guideline: | Boron levels should not exceed 1,000 ug/L (Department of Health Services Health Advisory)
Guideline Reference: | Drinking Water Notification and Response Levels: An Overview
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from Deer Creek at Fountain Springs and at Mountain Road 120
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between June 24, 2003 and May 19, 2004
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 | 9891
Pollutant: | Chloride
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision
Revision Status | Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant
Weight of Evidence: | This pollutant is being considered for listing under sections 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Data is available from 1 line of evidence for this pollutant. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is not sufficient justification for placing this water segment-pollution combination on the section 303(d) list. The recommendation is based on staff findings that 0 of 5 available concentrations exceeded the water quality objective and this does not exceed the allowable frequency using Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Table 3.1 of the listing policy recommends listing if a sample size of 5 has 2 or more samples that exceed the evaluation criteria. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
RWQCB Board Decision / Staff 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.
SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
USEPA Decision: |

Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 9891

LOE ID: | 20938
Pollutant: | Chloride
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water
Matrix: | Water
Fraction: | None
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply
Number of Samples: | 5
Number of Exceedances: | 0
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Zero of the 5 samples collected by the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program exceeded the evaluation objective for Chloride.
Data Reference: | SWAMP data entered by SWRCB into BDAT database
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. This objective applies regardless of whether the toxicity is caused by a single substance or the interactive effect of multiple substances. (CRWQCB, 2006)
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board - Central Valley Region
Evaluation Guideline: | Chloride levels should not exceed 250 mg/L (Department of Public Health Secondary MCL).
Guideline Reference: | California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 4, Chapter 15. Domestic Water Quality and Monitoring. http://www.cdph.ca.gov/certlic/drinkingwater/Pages/Lawbook.aspx
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected at Deer Creek. Samples were collected at Deer Creek - fountain springs. Samples were collected at Deer Creek - Mtn rd 120.
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected from June 24 2003 to May 19 2004.
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 | 9892
Pollutant: | Escherichia coli (E. Coli)
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision
Revision Status | Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant
Weight of Evidence: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.3 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.3 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Four of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Four of 6 available concentrations exceeded the USEPA E. Coli Guideline for Water Contact Recreation and this number of exceedances does not require the segment to be listed using Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Four these same 6 available concentrations also exceeded the USEPA E. Coli Guideline for Non-Contact Recreation, but.this number of exceedances does not require listing using 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.
RWQCB Board Decision / Staff 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.
SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
USEPA Decision: |

Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 9892

LOE ID: | 7525
Pollutant: | Escherichia coli (E. Coli)
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water
Matrix: | Water
Fraction: | None
Beneficial Use: | Water Contact Recreation
Number of Samples: | 6
Number of Exceedances: | 4
Data and Information Type: | Not Specified
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | 4 of the 6 samples collected by the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program exceeded the evaluation objective for E.Coli Bacteria. The exceeded results are as follows: 5/19/2004 - a sample taken at Deer Creek had a result of 900MPN/100 mL. 6/16/2004 - a sample taken at Deer Creek had a result of 500MPN/100 mL. 6/24/2003 - a sample taken at Deer Creek - fountain springs had a result of 500MPN/100 mL. 5/19/2004 - a sample taken at Deer Creek - Mtn rd 120 had a result of 500MPN/100 mL.
Data Reference: | SWAMP data entered by SWRCB into BDAT database
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. This objective applies regardless of whether the toxicity is caused by a single substance or the interactive effect of multiple substances. (CRWQCB, 2006)
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board - Central Valley Region
Evaluation Guideline: | E.Coli Bacteria levels should not exceed 235 MPN/100 mL in any single sample (USEPA E.Coli Guideline)
Guideline Reference: | Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria - 1986. EPA440/5-84-002
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected at Deer Creek. Samples were collected at Deer Creek - fountain springs. Samples were collected at Deer Creek - Mtn rd 120.
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected from Jun 24 2003 to Jun 16 2004
Environmental Conditions: |
QAPP Information: | Monitoring was conducted in accordance with the State Water Resources Control Board's Quality Assurance Program Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program.
QAPP Information Reference(s):
LOE ID: | 7538
Pollutant: | Escherichia coli (E. Coli)
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water
Matrix: | Water
Fraction: | None
Beneficial Use: | Non-Contact Recreation
Number of Samples: | 6
Number of Exceedances: | 4
Data and Information Type: | Not Specified
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | 4 of the 6 samples collected by the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program exceeded the evaluation objective for E.Coli Bacteria. The exceeded results are as follows: 5/19/2004 - a sample taken at Deer Creek had a result of 900MPN/100 mL. 6/16/2004 - a sample taken at Deer Creek had a result of 500MPN/100 mL. 6/24/2003 - a sample taken at Deer Creek - fountain springs had a result of 500MPN/100 mL. 5/19/2004 - a sample taken at Deer Creek - Mtn rd 120 had a result of 500MPN/100 mL.
Data Reference: | SWAMP data entered by SWRCB into BDAT database
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. This objective applies regardless of whether the toxicity is caused by a single substance or the interactive effect of multiple substances. (CRWQCB, 2006)
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board - Central Valley Region
Evaluation Guideline: | E.Coli Bacteria levels should not exceed 409 MPN/100 mL in any single sample (USEPA E.Coli Guideline)
Guideline Reference: | Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria - 1986. EPA440/5-84-002
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected at Deer Creek. Samples were collected at Deer Creek - fountain springs. Samples were collected at Deer Creek - Mtn rd 120.
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected from Jun 24 2003 to Jun 16 2004
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 | 9893
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: | New Decision
Revision Status | Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant
Weight of Evidence: | "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 2 lines of evidence for this pollutant. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is not sufficient justification for placing this water segment-pollution combination on the section 303(d) list. The recommendation is based on staff findings that 0 of 3 available concentrations exceeded the USEPA National Ambient Water Quality Objective for Cold Freshwater Habitat and this does not exceed the allowable frequency using Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. The recommendation is also based on staff findings that 0 of 3 available concentrations exceeded the Department of Public Health Primary MCL for Municipal & Domestic Supply and this does not exceed the allowable frequency using Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. "
RWQCB Board Decision / Staff 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.
SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
USEPA Decision: |

Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 9893

LOE ID: | 8767
Pollutant: | Nitrate as Nitrate (NO3)
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water
Matrix: | Water
Fraction: | None
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat
Number of Samples: | 3
Number of Exceedances: | 0
Data and Information Type: | Not Specified
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Zero of the 3 samples collected by the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program exceeded the evaluation guideline for Nitrate-N.
Data Reference: | SWAMP data entered by SWRCB into BDAT database
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. This objective applies regardless of whether the toxicity is caused by a single substance or the interactive effect of multiple substances. (CRWQCB, 2006)
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board - Central Valley Region
Evaluation Guideline: | Nitrate-N levels should not to exceed 100 mg/L (USEPA National Ambient Water Quality Objective)
Guideline Reference: | National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Office of Science and Technology. 4304T The Blue Book
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected at Deer Creek. Samples were collected at Deer Creek - fountain springs. Samples were collected at Deer Creek - Mtn rd 120.
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):
LOE ID: | 20919
Pollutant: | Nitrate as Nitrate (NO3)
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water
Matrix: | Water
Fraction: | None
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply
Number of Samples: | 3
Number of Exceedances: | 0
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | 0 of the 3 samples collected by the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program exceeded the evaluation objective for Nitrate-N.
Data Reference: | SWAMP data entered by SWRCB into BDAT database
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. This objective applies regardless of whether the toxicity is caused by a single substance or the interactive effect of multiple substances. (CRWQCB, 2006)
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board - Central Valley Region
Evaluation Guideline: | Nitrate-N levels should not exceed 45 mg/L (Department of Public Health Primary MCL)
Guideline Reference: | California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 4, Chapter 15. Domestic Water Quality and Monitoring. http://www.cdph.ca.gov/certlic/drinkingwater/Pages/Lawbook.aspx
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected at Deer Creek. Samples were collected at Deer Creek - fountain springs. Samples were collected at Deer Creek - Mtn rd 120.
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 | 14740
Pollutant: | Oxygen, Dissolved
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision
Revision Status | Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant
Weight of Evidence: | 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 lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Four of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Four of 42 samples fell below the minimum criterion water quality objective listed in the Sacramento/San Joaquin River Basin Plan 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.
RWQCB Board Decision / Staff 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.
SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
USEPA Decision: |

Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 14740

LOE ID: | 21965
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: | 42
Number of Exceedances: | 4
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Forty-two samples were taken from Deer Creek between 2003 and 2006. Four of the forty-two samples fell below the Water Quality Objective for minimum dissolved oxygen content in surface water.
Data Reference: | Revised Draft of the 2007 Review of the Monitoring Data for the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Conditional Waiver Program
| Monitoring and Reporting Program, Order Nos. R5-2003-0826, R5-2005-0833, and R5-2008-0005 for Coalition Groups Under Resolution No. R5-2003-0105, Conditional Waiver of Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges From Irrigated Lands Within the Central Valley Region
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
Evaluation Guideline: |
Guideline Reference:
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the Deer Creek in Tulare County.
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected between June 2003 and October 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):

DECISION ID | 14741
Pollutant: | Sediment Toxicity
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision
Revision Status | Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant
Weight of Evidence: | 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 lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 3 samples exceeded the narrative toxicity objective and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
RWQCB Board Decision / Staff 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.
SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
USEPA Decision: |

Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 14741

LOE ID: | 21966
Pollutant: | Toxicity
LOE Subgroup: | Toxicity
Matrix: | Sediment
Fraction: | Total
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat
Aquatic Life Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat
Number of Samples: | 3
Number of Exceedances: | 0
Data and Information Type: | TOXICITY TESTING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Zero of the three samples tested with Hyalella azteca were toxic.
Data Reference: | Revised Draft of the 2007 Review of the Monitoring Data for the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Conditional Waiver Program
| Monitoring and Reporting Program, Order Nos. R5-2003-0826, R5-2005-0833, and R5-2008-0005 for Coalition Groups Under Resolution No. R5-2003-0105, Conditional Waiver of Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges From Irrigated Lands Within the Central Valley Region
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. This objective applies regardless of whether the toxicity is caused by a single substance or the interactive effect of multiple substances. (CVRWQCB, 2004)
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin, Second Edition
Evaluation Guideline: | Statistically significant difference from control using a t-test with 10-day Hyalella azteca sediment toxicity tests.
Guideline Reference: | Methods for Measuring the Toxicity and Bioaccumulation of Sediment-associated Contaminants with Freshwater Invertebrates, Second Edition. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research and Development, Duluth, MI , U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water, Washington, DC EPA-600/R-99/064
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from three locations: Deer Creek at Alila, Deer Creek at Road 120, and Deer Creek at Road 176.
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected from March 2005 to September 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):

DECISION ID | 9894
Pollutant: | Specific Conductivity
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision
Revision Status | Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant
Weight of Evidence: | This pollutant is being considered for listing under sections 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Data is available from 1 line of evidence for this pollutant. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is not sufficient justification for placing this water segment-pollution combination on the section 303(d) list. The recommendation is based on staff findings that 0 of 6 available concentrations exceeded the water quality objective and this does not exceed the allowable frequency using Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Table 3.2 of the listing policy recommends listing if a sample size of 6 has 5 or more samples that exceed the evaluation criteria. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
RWQCB Board Decision / Staff 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.
SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
USEPA Decision: |

Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 9894

LOE ID: | 20985
Pollutant: | Specific Conductivity
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water
Matrix: | Water
Fraction: | None
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply
Number of Samples: | 6
Number of Exceedances: | 0
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | None of the 6 samples collected by the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program "recommended" Secondary MCL of 900 uS/cm for electrical conductivity
Data Reference: | SWAMP data entered by SWRCB into BDAT database
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: | California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 4, Chapter 15. Domestic Water Quality and Monitoring. http://www.cdph.ca.gov/certlic/drinkingwater/Pages/Lawbook.aspx
Evaluation Guideline: |
Guideline Reference:
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from Deer Creek at Fountain Springs and at Mountain Road 120
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between June 24, 2003 and June 16, 2004
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 | 9895
Pollutant: | Total Dissolved Solids
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision
Revision Status | Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant
Weight of Evidence: | This pollutant is being considered for listing under sections 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Data is available from 1 line of evidence for this pollutant. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is not sufficient justification for placing this water segment-pollution combination on the section 303(d) list. The recommendation is based on staff findings that 0 of 5 available concentrations exceeded the water quality objective and this does not exceed the allowable frequency using Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Table 3.1 of the listing policy recommends listing if a sample size of 5 has 2 or more samples that exceed the evaluation criteria. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
RWQCB Board Decision / Staff 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.
SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
USEPA Decision: |

Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 9895

LOE ID: | 21010
Pollutant: | Total Dissolved Solids
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water
Matrix: | Water
Fraction: | Total
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply
Number of Samples: | 5
Number of Exceedances: | 0
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | None of the 5 samples collected by the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program exceeded the "recommended" Secondary MCL of 500 mg/L for Total Dissolved Solids
Data Reference: | SWAMP data entered by SWRCB into BDAT database
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Secondary MCLs for Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) range from a recommended level (500 mg/L), to an upper level (1,000 mg/L) and a short-term level (1,500 mg/L). The recommended Secondary MCL of 500 mg/L was used to assess TDS data, as it is intended to be protective of all drinking water uses.
Objective/Criterion Reference: | California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 4, Chapter 15. Domestic Water Quality and Monitoring. http://www.cdph.ca.gov/certlic/drinkingwater/Pages/Lawbook.aspx
Evaluation Guideline: |
Guideline Reference:
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from Deer Creekat Fountain Springs and at Mountain Rd 120
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between June 24, 2003 and May 19, 2004
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 | 13090
Pollutant: | Unknown Toxicity
Final Listing Decision: | List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision
Revision Status | Revised
Sources: | Source Unknown
Expected TMDL Completion Date: | 2021
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant
Weight of Evidence: | 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. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Twenty-four of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Twenty of 33 samples tested with selenastrum exceed the narrative toxicity objective and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. In addition, 4 of 32 samples tested with fathead minnow exceed the narrative toxicity objective and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are exceeded and a pollutant contributes to or causes the problem.
SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
USEPA Decision: |

Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 13090

LOE ID: | 21935
Pollutant: | Toxicity
LOE Subgroup: | Toxicity
Matrix: | Water
Fraction: | Total
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat
Aquatic Life Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat
Number of Samples: | 33
Number of Exceedances: | 20
Data and Information Type: | TOXICITY TESTING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Twenty of 33 samples tested with Selenastrum capricornutum were toxic and violated the narrative toxicity objective. Seven samples collected at Deer Creek exhibited a statistically significant decrease in growth compared to the control. The sample dates and percent of control (in parentheses) are as follows:30 August 2005 (81)19 October 2005 (45)14 February 2005 (73)26 June 2006 (78)24 July 2006 (79)21 August 2006 (68)23 October 2006 (66)One sample collected at Deer Creek and Highway 65 exhibited a statistically significant decrease in growth compared to the control. The sample date and percent of control (in parentheses) are as follows:14 February 2005 (60)Six samples collected at Deer Creek at Pixley Wildlife Refuge exhibited a statistically significant decrease in growth compared to the control. The sample dates and percent of control (in parentheses) are as follows:30 August 2005 (62)14 February 2005 (44)13 March 2006 (72)26 June 2006 (68)24 July 2006 (58)21 August 2006 (63)Six samples collected at Deer Creek at Road 192 and Avenue 96 exhibited a statistically significant decrease in growth compared to the control. The sample dates and percent of control (in parentheses) are as follows:30 August 2005 (62)14 February 2005 (47)13 March 2006 (72)26 June 2006 (65)24 July 2006 (59)21 August 2006 (62)
Data Reference: | Revised Draft of the 2007 Review of the Monitoring Data for the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Conditional Waiver Program
| Monitoring and Reporting Program, Order Nos. R5-2003-0826, R5-2005-0833, and R5-2008-0005 for Coalition Groups Under Resolution No. R5-2003-0105, Conditional Waiver of Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges From Irrigated Lands Within the Central Valley Region
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. This objective applies regardless of whether the toxicity is caused by a single substance or the interactive effect of multiple substances. (CVRWQCB, 2004)
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin, Second Edition
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 seven locations: Deer Creek, Deer Creek at Highway 65, Deer Creek at Pixley Wildlife Refuge, Deer Creek at Road 120, Deer Creek at Road 176, Deer Creek at Road 208, and Deer Creek at Road 192 and Avenue 96.
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected from August 2005 to October 2006.
Environmental Conditions: |
QAPP Information: | Excellent. Monitoring was conducted in accordance with Central Valley Water Board Monitoring and Reporting Program (order number R5-2003-0826) requirements (CVRWQCB, 2003)
QAPP Information Reference(s):
LOE ID: | 21934
Pollutant: | Toxicity
LOE Subgroup: | Toxicity
Matrix: | Water
Fraction: | Total
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat
Aquatic Life Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat
Number of Samples: | 32
Number of Exceedances: | 4
Data and Information Type: | TOXICITY TESTING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Four of the 32 samples tested with Pimephales promelas were toxic and violated the narrative toxicity objective. One sample collected at Deer Creek exhibited a statistically significant decrease in growth compared to the control. The sample date and percent of control (in parentheses) are as follows:15 March 2006 ()One sample collected at Deer Creek at Highway 65 exhibited a statistically significant decrease in growth compared to the control. The sample date and percent of control (in parentheses) are as follows:13 March 2006 ()One sample collected at Deer Creek at Road 120 exhibited a statistically significant decrease in growth compared to the control. The sample date and percent of control (in parentheses) are as follows:16 August 2006 (85)One sample collected at Deer Creek at Road 192 and Avenue 96 exhibited a statistically significant decrease in growth compared to the control. The sample date and percent of control (in parentheses) are as follows:13 March 2006 ()
Data Reference: | Revised Draft of the 2007 Review of the Monitoring Data for the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Conditional Waiver Program
| Monitoring and Reporting Program, Order Nos. R5-2003-0826, R5-2005-0833, and R5-2008-0005 for Coalition Groups Under Resolution No. R5-2003-0105, Conditional Waiver of Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges From Irrigated Lands Within the Central Valley Region
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. This objective applies regardless of whether the toxicity is caused by a single substance or the interactive effect of multiple substances. (CVRWQCB, 2004)
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin, Second Edition
Evaluation Guideline: | Statistically significant difference from control using a t-test with 4-day acute-style toxicity tests.
Guideline Reference: | Methods for Measuring the Acute Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters to Freshwater and Marine Organisms, Fifth Edition. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water, Washington, DC EPA-821-R-02-012
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from seven locations: Deer Creek, Deer Creek at Highway 65, Deer Creek at Pixley Wildlife Refuge, Deer Creek at Road 120, Deer Creek at Road 176, Deer Creek at Road 208, and Deer Creek at Road 192 and Avenue 96.
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected from August 2005 to October 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):
LOE ID: | 21964
Pollutant: | Toxicity
LOE Subgroup: | Toxicity
Matrix: | Water
Fraction: | Total
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat
Aquatic Life Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat
Number of Samples: | 33
Number of Exceedances: | 0
Data and Information Type: | TOXICITY TESTING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Zero of the 33 samples tested with Ceriodaphnia dubia were toxic and violated the narrative toxicity objective.
Data Reference: | Revised Draft of the 2007 Review of the Monitoring Data for the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Conditional Waiver Program
| Monitoring and Reporting Program, Order Nos. R5-2003-0826, R5-2005-0833, and R5-2008-0005 for Coalition Groups Under Resolution No. R5-2003-0105, Conditional Waiver of Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges From Irrigated Lands Within the Central Valley Region
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. This objective applies regardless of whether the toxicity is caused by a single substance or the interactive effect of multiple substances. (CVRWQCB, 2004)
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin, Second Edition
Evaluation Guideline: | Statistically significant difference from control using a t-test with 4-day acute-style toxicity tests.
Guideline Reference: | Methods for Measuring the Acute Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters to Freshwater and Marine Organisms, Fifth Edition. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water, Washington, DC EPA-821-R-02-012
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from seven locations: Deer Creek, Deer Creek at Highway 65, Deer Creek at Pixley Wildlife Refuge, Deer Creek at Road 120, Deer Creek at Road 176, Deer Creek at Road 208, and Deer Creek at Road 192 and Avenue 96.
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected from August 2005 to October 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):

DECISION ID | 13088
Pollutant: | pH (high)
Final Listing Decision: | List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision
Revision Status | Revised
Sources: | Source Unknown
Expected TMDL Completion Date: | 2021
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant
Weight of Evidence: | 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 lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Ten of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Ten of 44 samples exceed the pH objective and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are exceeded and a pollutant contributes to or causes the problem.
SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
USEPA Decision: |

Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 13088

LOE ID: | 21963
Pollutant: | pH
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water
Matrix: | Water
Fraction: | None
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat
Aquatic Life Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat
Number of Samples: | 44
Number of Exceedances: | 10
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | The Southern San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition collected 44 samples from June 2003 to October 2006. Ten out of 44 samples were outside the acceptable range; all ten samples were higher than the acceptable pH range.
Data Reference: | Revised Draft of the 2007 Review of the Monitoring Data for the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Conditional Waiver Program
| Monitoring and Reporting Program, Order Nos. R5-2003-0826, R5-2005-0833, and R5-2008-0005 for Coalition Groups Under Resolution No. R5-2003-0105, Conditional Waiver of Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges From Irrigated Lands Within the Central Valley Region
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The pH of water shall not be depressed below 6.5, raised above 8.3, or changed at any time more than 0.3 units from normal ambient pH.
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin, Second Edition
Evaluation Guideline: |
Guideline Reference:
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from six locations: Deer Creek, Deer Creek at Alila Avenue, Deer Creek at Highway 65, Deer Creek at Pixley Wildlife Refuge, Deer Creek at Road 208, and Deer Creek at Road 192 and Avenue 96.
Temporal Representation: | Sampling occurred from June 2003 to October 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):