| Water Body Name: | Big Chico Creek (Butte and Tehama Counties) |
| Water Body ID: | CAR5204000020020610133629 |
| Water Body Type: | River & Stream |
DECISION ID |
18305 |
Region 5 |
Big Chico Creek (Butte and Tehama 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)(2010) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | The decision has not changed. Region 5 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle.
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. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective for pesticides. 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 the 9 samples exceeded the CDFG criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | The decision has not changed. Region 5 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle.
This is a decision made by the State Water Resources Control Board and approved by the USEPA in 2006 . No new data were assessed by the Regional Board for 2008. The decision has not changed. |
| State Board Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | The decision has not changed. Region 5 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle.
After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 2678 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Diazinon | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Not Specified | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 9 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Data was analyzed using GC/ECD/TSD. Samples collected at the mouth were also analyzed using EPA 8141A; all data points were non-detect. None of the concentrations from the 9 samples from this site exceeded the CDFG criteria. (Dileanis, 2003). | ||||
| Data Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| 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. Discharges shall not result in pesticide concentrations in bottom sediments or aquatic life that adversely affect beneficial uses. 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. Waters designated for use as domestic or municipal supply (MUN) shall not contain concentrations of pesticides in excess of the Maximum Contaminant Levels set forth in California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 4, Chapter 15. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | CDFG Hazard Assessment Criteria 0.10 ug/L 4-day average and 0.16 ug/L 1-hour average (Siepman & Finlayson, 2000; Finlayson, 2004). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected on Big Chico Creek at Chico and near the mouth. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Nine samples were collected at both locations during February. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Data from USGS reports are considered of adequate quality per section 6.1.4 of the Policy. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
25069 |
Region 5 |
Big Chico Creek (Butte and Tehama Counties) |
||
| Pollutant: | Mercury |
| Final Listing Decision: | List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2010) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Sources: | Source Unknown |
| Expected TMDL Completion Date: | 2021 |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | The decision has not changed. Region 5 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle.
This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under sections 3.1 and 3.5, 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. 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. Two of 2 fish tissue samples exceeded the USEPA Fish Tissue Residue Criterion of 0.3 mg/kg (0.3 ppm) for the protection of human health, and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | The decision has not changed. Region 5 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle.
After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are exceeded and a pollutant contributes to or causes the problem. |
| State Board Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | The decision has not changed. Region 5 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle.
After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 21687 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Mercury | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
| Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 2 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Fish were sampled for tissue analysis at one location from Big Chico Creek. A total of 2 out of 2 samples exceeded the USEPA fish tissue criterion for human health. The average wet weight mercury concentration in fish tissue was 0.41 ppm for all 2 samples collected. The number of fish collected per sample, the measured mercury concentrations in fish tissue, and the number of exceedances are, by species: Largemouth Bass- one 5-fish composite sample, 0.33 ppm, 1 exceedance; Sacramento Pikeminnow- one 5-fish composite sample, 0.48 ppm, 1 exceedance. Both composite samples were collected from fish with average total lengths greater than 150 mm, which represent fish most commonly caught and consumed by sport fishers and their families. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Sacramento River Watershed Program Annual Reports for 1999-2000, 2000-2001, 2001-2002, 2002-2003, and 2003-2004; and BDAT data 1998-2003 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. The objective applies regardless of whether the toxicity is caused by a single substance or the interactive effect of multiple substances. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The USEPA Fish Tissue Residue Criterion for methylmercury in fish is 0.3 mg/kg (0.3 ppm) for the protection of human health. This is the concentration in fish tissue that should not be exceeded based on a total fish and shellfish consumption-weighted rate of 0.0175 kg fish/day. (USEPA, 2001) | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Water Quality Criterion for the Protection of Human Health: Methylmercury. Final. United States Environmental Protection Agency Office of Science and Technology Office of Water. EPA-823-R-01-001. January 2001 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected at one location from Big Chico Creek approximately 0.5 miles upstream of the confluence with the Sacramento River. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Fish samples were collected during one sampling event in the year 2000. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Data quality: Excellent.. Quality Control for all of the elements described in section 6.1.4 of the Policy was conducted in accordance with the Sacramento River Watershed Program QAPP prepared by Larry Walker Associates (LWA, 2000). | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plans prepared for Sacramento River Watershed Program | ||||