|
LOE ID: |
21678 |
|
Pollutant: |
Toxicity |
LOE Subgroup: |
Toxicity |
Matrix: |
Water |
Fraction: |
Total |
|
Beneficial Use: |
Warm Freshwater Habitat |
Aquatic Life Use: |
Warm Freshwater Habitat |
|
Number of Samples: |
18 |
Number of Exceedances: |
0 |
|
Data and Information Type: |
TOXICITY TESTING |
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: |
0/4, 0/10, and 0/4 (0/18 total) samples, respectively, tested with Pimephales promelas 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, 2007) |
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: |
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 Butte Creek at Gridley Road, Gridley Road Bridge, and on the Durham Dayton Highway |
Temporal Representation: |
Samples were collected from January - February 2006, May 2005 - September 2006, and January - February 2005 respectively |
Environmental Conditions: |
|
QAPP Information: |
Data quality: 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: |
21677 |
|
Pollutant: |
Toxicity |
LOE Subgroup: |
Toxicity |
Matrix: |
Water |
Fraction: |
Total |
|
Beneficial Use: |
Warm Freshwater Habitat |
Aquatic Life Use: |
Warm Freshwater Habitat |
|
Number of Samples: |
17 |
Number of Exceedances: |
1 |
|
Data and Information Type: |
TOXICITY TESTING |
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: |
0/4, 0/9, and 1/4 (1/17 total) samples, respectively, tested with Ceriodaphnia dubia were toxic and violated the narrative toxicity objective. The sample collected from the Durham Dayton Highway on 28 January 2005 exhibited a statistically significant decrease in survival of 45% (47% of control). |
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, 2007) |
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: |
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 Butte Creek at Gridley Road, Gridley Road Bridge, and on the Durham Dayton Highway. |
Temporal Representation: |
Samples were collected from January - February 2006, July 2005 - September 2006, and January - February 2005 respectively |
Environmental Conditions: |
|
QAPP Information: |
Data quality: 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: |
21680 |
|
Pollutant: |
Toxicity |
LOE Subgroup: |
Toxicity |
Matrix: |
Water |
Fraction: |
Total |
|
Beneficial Use: |
Warm Freshwater Habitat |
Aquatic Life Use: |
Warm Freshwater Habitat |
|
Number of Samples: |
17 |
Number of Exceedances: |
0 |
|
Data and Information Type: |
TOXICITY TESTING |
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: |
0/4, 0/9, and 0/4 (0/17 total) samples, respectively, tested with Selenastrum capricornutum 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, 2007) |
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: |
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 Butte Creek at Gridley Road, Gridley Road Bridge, and on the Durham Dayton Highway. |
Temporal Representation: |
Samples were collected from January - February 2006, July 2005 - September 2006, and January - February 2005 respectively |
Environmental Conditions: |
|
QAPP Information: |
Data quality: 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): |
|
DECISION ID |
12741 |
|
Pollutant: |
Mercury |
Final Listing Decision: |
List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: |
New Decision |
Revision Status |
Revised |
Sources: |
Resource Extraction |
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. 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. Twenty-eight of 38 fish tissue samples exceeded the USEPA Fish Tissue Residue Criterion of 0.3 mg/kg (0.3 ppm) for 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. |
|
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 12741 |
|
LOE ID: |
21721 |
|
Pollutant: |
Mercury |
LOE Subgroup: |
Pollutant-Tissue |
Matrix: |
Tissue |
Fraction: |
Total |
|
Beneficial Use: |
Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms |
|
Number of Samples: |
38 |
Number of Exceedances: |
28 |
|
Data and Information Type: |
PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING |
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: |
Fish were sampled for tissue analysis at one location from Butte Creek. A total of 28 out of 38 samples exceeded the USEPA fish tissue criterion for human health. The average wet weight mercury concentration in fish tissue was 0.42 ppm for all 38 samples collected. The number of fish collected per sample, the measured mercury concentrations in fish tissue, and the number of exceedances are, by species: Black Crappie- 1 sample, 0.36 ppm, 1 exceedance; Bluegill- 1 sample, 0.27 ppm, no exceedances; Carp- 10 samples, 0.21-0.48 ppm (average 0.36 ppm), 7 exceedances; Channel Catfish- 12 samples, 0.18-0.65 ppm (average 0.40 ppm), 9 exceedances; Largemouth Bass- 12 samples, 0.28-0.95 ppm (average 0.55 ppm), 11 exceedances; Redear Sunfish- 2 samples, 0.23 and 0.28 ppm, no exceedances. All 38 samples were collected from fish with total lengths greater than 150 mm, which represent fish most commonly caught and consumed by sport fishers and their families. |
Data Reference: |
Fish Mercury Project, Year 2 Annual Report, Sport Fish Sampling and Analysis. Final Report. October 2007 |
|
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: |
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: |
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 Butte Creek approximately 0.5 miles upstream from Butte Slough Road. |
Temporal Representation: |
Fish samples were collected during one sampling event on 8/15/2006. |
Environmental Conditions: |
Significant gold mining activity occurred during the Gold Rush era within the Butte Creek watershed (USGS, 2005). |
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 Laboratory QAPP developed by Moss Landing Marine Laboratories (MLML, 2005). This data was also collected and analyzed in accordance with the CALFED Mercury Project QAPP (Puckett and van Buuren, 2000). |
QAPP Information Reference(s): |
|
DECISION ID |
8977 |
|
Pollutant: |
pH |
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 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 sufficient justification for placing this water segment-pollution combination on the section 303(d) list. The recommendation is based on staff findings that 9 of 44 available concentrations exceeded the water quality objective and this does 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 44 has 8 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 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 8977 |
|
LOE ID: |
8045 |
|
Pollutant: |
pH |
LOE Subgroup: |
Pollutant-Water |
Matrix: |
Water |
Fraction: |
None |
|
Beneficial Use: |
Cold Freshwater Habitat |
|
Number of Samples: |
44 |
Number of Exceedances: |
9 |
|
Data and Information Type: |
Not Specified |
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: |
Nine of the 44 samples collected by the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program exceeded the evaluation objective for pH. The exceeded results are as follows: 11/28/2001 - a sample taken at Butte Creek @ Aguas Frias Road had a result of 9.06-. 2/8/2001 - a sample taken at Butte Creek @ Durham/Dayton Hwy had a result of 8.7-. 2/1/2002 - a sample taken at Butte Creek @ Durham/Dayton Hwy had a result of 5.8-. 12/7/2000 - a sample taken at Butte Creek @ Hwy 99 had a result of 8.54-. 2/8/2001 - a sample taken at Butte Creek @ Hwy 99 had a result of 8.78-. 3/9/2001 - a sample taken at Butte Creek @ Hwy 99 had a result of 8.6-. 8/22/2001 - a sample taken at Butte Creek @ Hwy 99 had a result of 8.71-. 12/19/2001 - a sample taken at Butte Creek @ Hwy 99 had a result of 8.7-. 7/30/2002 - a sample taken at Butte Creek @ Hwy 99 had a result of 8.94-. |
Data Reference: |
SWAMP data entered by SWRCB into BDAT database |
|
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: |
pH levels should not be lower than 6.5 or higher than 8.5 (Basin Plan Objective) |
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: |
|
Guideline Reference: |
|
Spatial Representation: |
Samples were collected at Butte Creek @ Aguas Frias Road. Samples were collected at Butte Creek @ Durham/Dayton Hwy. Samples were collected at Butte Creek @ Hwy 99. |
Temporal Representation: |
The samples were collected from Dec 7 2000 to Jul 30 2002 |
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 |
4495 |
|
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)(2006) |
Revision Status |
Original |
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 line of evidence is 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 the 45 samples exceeded the CDFG Hazard Assessment 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. |
|
RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
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. |
|
SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
|
|
USEPA Decision: |
|
|
|
Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 4495 |
|
LOE ID: |
2676 |
|
Pollutant: |
Diazinon |
LOE Subgroup: |
Pollutant-Water |
Matrix: |
Water |
Fraction: |
None |
|
Beneficial Use: |
Cold Freshwater Habitat |
|
Number of Samples: |
45 |
Number of Exceedances: |
0 |
|
Data and Information Type: |
PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING |
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: |
None of the concentrations from the 45 samples from this site exceeded the CDFG criteria. Data was analyzed using ELISA and GC/ECD/TSD. Some of the data was questionable due to a possible bias (higher diazinon conc) from the ELISA method and as such could not be used in this assessment. (Dileanis, 2003a), (Dileanis, 2002). |
Data Reference: |
Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) |
|
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 taken on Butte Creek at Gridley Road. |
Temporal Representation: |
Samples were taken late January/early February 2000-01. |
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 |
4497 |
|
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)(2006) |
Revision Status |
Original |
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 line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The data provided is insufficient to determine if standards are being met or exceeded against the water quality criteria and with the confidence and power required by the Listing Policy.
Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the 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. The data provided is insufficient to determine if standards are being met or exceeded against the water quality criteria and with the confidence and power required by the Listing Policy. Based on the data provided, the 7-day mean, 7-day maximum, annual maximum and maximum weekly average temperatures (MWAT) cannot be determined so as to compare to the water quality criteria as outlined in Sullivan et al. (2000) Published Temperature Thresholds-Peer Reviewed Literature.
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: |
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. |
|
SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
|
|
USEPA Decision: |
|
|
|
Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 4497 |
|
LOE ID: |
2677 |
|
Pollutant: |
Temperature, water |
LOE Subgroup: |
Pollutant-Water |
Matrix: |
Water |
Fraction: |
Total |
|
Beneficial Use: |
Cold Freshwater Habitat |
|
Number of Samples: |
0 |
Number of Exceedances: |
0 |
|
Data and Information Type: |
Not Specified |
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: |
Thermal recording data loggers were deployed in pools at the fives sites within the SRCS holding and spawning reach of Butte Creek. They were set for 1-hour interval readings and recorded average daily temperatures which ranged as high as 22.9 degrees Celsius on July 23, at the Cable Bridge location. The measurements were recorded from June 1st to October 31st, 2003 at all 5 sites. Only the number of sampling days equal to or exceeding 15.0 degrees C, 17.5 degrees C and 20.0 degrees C were given for each site. The total number of samples was not specified (Ward et al. 2003). |
Data Reference: |
Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) |
|
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. Temperature objectives for COLD interstate waters, WARM interstate waters, and Enclosed Bays and Estuaries are as specified in the Water Quality Control Plan for Control of Temperature in the Coastal and Interstate Waters and Enclosed Bays of California including any revisions. There are also temperature objectives for the Delta in the State Water Board's May 1991 Water Quality Control Plan for salinity. At no time or place shall the temperature of COLD or WARM intrastate waters be increased more than 5 degrees F above natural receiving water temperature. To the extent of any conflict with the above, the more stringent objective applies. In determining compliance with the water quality objectives for temperature, appropriate averaging periods may be applied provided that beneficial uses will be fully protected. |
Objective/Criterion Reference: |
Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) |
|
Evaluation Guideline: |
The guideline used was from Sullivan et al. (2000) Published Temperature Thresholds-Peer Reviewed Literature which includes reviewed sub-lethal and acute temperature thresholds from a wide range of studies, incorporating information from laboratory-based research, field observations, and risk assessment approaches. This report calculated the 7-day Mean (maximum value of the 7-day moving average of the daily mean temperature) upper threshold criterion for steelhead trout as 17.0 degrees C. The risk assessment approach used by Sullivan et al. (2000) suggests that an upper threshold for the 7-day average of 17.0 degrees C for steelhead will reduce average growth 10% from optimum. |
Guideline Reference: |
Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) |
|
Spatial Representation: |
Daily temperature readings were recorded at 5 sites on Butte Creek - Quartz Bowl Pool, Chimney Rock, Pool 4, Centerville Estates, and Cable Bridge. |
Temporal Representation: |
Daily temperatures were recorded from June to October 2003 (6/01/03-10/31/03). |
Environmental Conditions: |
Temperatures in Butte Creek above Centerville Powerhouse averaged 3.1 degree celsius warmer (7/1 to 9/15) than LCDD (average flow of 46.3 cfs). Temperatures at Lower Centerville Canal averaged 0.6 degree celsius warmer (7/1 to 9/15) than LCDD (average flow of 108 cfs).
Stream flows at LCDD were at spill levels through July 6, 2003. Temperature changes were evaluated for the period June 15 through July 6, 2003. During this period the delta-T in the bypass reach of Butte Creek (between LCDD and Butte Creek above the Centerville Powerhouse) was +1.5 degrees celsius with flow in the creek exceeding 200cfs. In comparison, the delta-T through Lower Centerville Canal (between LCDD and the Centerville Powerhouse Headworks) was +0.9 degrees celsius with an average flow of 77 cfs. |
QAPP Information: |
QA Info Missing |
QAPP Information Reference(s): |