Water Body Name: | Davis Creek (upstream from Davis Creek Reservoir, Yolo County) |
Water Body ID: | CAR5133201020080623175452 |
Water Body Type: | River & Stream |
DECISION ID |
131094 |
Region 5 |
Davis Creek (upstream from Davis Creek Reservoir, Yolo County) |
||
Pollutant: | Mercury |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2018) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Sources: | A Source Unknown |
Expected TMDL Completion Date: | 2027 |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for removal from the CWA section 303(d) List under section 4.5 and 4.11 of the Listing Policy. Under section 4.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Under section 4.11 when all other delisting factors do not result in the delisting of a water segment but information indicates attainment of standards, a water segment shall be evaluated to determine whether the weight of evidence demonstrates that water quality standard is attained. If the weight of evidence indicates attainment, the water segment shall be removed from the CWA section 303(d) List. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOEs 22623 and 95476 is replaced with LOE 227032. LOE 227032 is a reassessment of the same data following the statewide mercury objectives adopted in 2017. WILD beneficial use: LOE 227032: 1 of 1 samples exceed the mercury objective and consist of 16 fish that are a mixture of trophic levels. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. The one sample for comparison with the prey fish objective consists of 15 fish and eight or more fish within a sample are needed to determine non-attainment of the mercury objective following weight of evidence in Listing Policy section 3.11. This sample was assessed for COMM in a previous cycle but is now reassessed for the WILD beneficial use due to length of fish in the sample. 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: | This decision was made by SWRCB staff. |
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. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 227032 | ||||
Pollutant: | Mercury | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
Fraction: | Fish fillet | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Wildlife Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed CALFED data for Davis Creek (upstream from Davis Creek Reservoir, Yolo County) to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 1 of the 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Mercury. All fish collected within the same calendar year with a reported length of 50-150 mm were averaged into a single sample, independent of species or trophic level, for comparison with the objective. This LOE consists of a total of 16 fish, which were aggregated into 1 annual averages, consisting of 1 fish species (2 composite(s) of California Roach each composed of 8 fish per composite). Of these annual averages, 1 average(s), (Year(s): 2000) exceeded the objective. | ||||
Data Reference: | Mercury Bioaccumulation and Trophic Transfer in the Cache Creek Watershed, California, in Relation to Diverse Aqueous Mercury Exposure Conditions. CALFED Mercury Program Final Project Report. January 25, 2004 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento 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 Statewide Prey Fish Water Quality Objective for the protection of Wildlife Habitat comes from the Statewide Water Quality Control Plan for Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays, and Estuaries of California, and is 0.05 mg/Kg wet weight whole fish samples of any fish species between 50 to 150 mm in total length collected between February 1 and July 31. (SWRCB Resolution No. 2017-0027) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays, and Estuaries Plan. Part 1: Trash Provisions; Part 2: Tribal Subsistence Beneficial Uses and Mercury Provisions; Part 3: Bacteria Provisions and Variance Policy | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data was collected from 1 station(s) with the station code(s): Davis Creek abv DCR. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this line of evidence were collected between 2000-08-04 and 2000-08-04. When composited fish were collected over multiple days, the first day of fish collection was used as the sample date in the LOE, both for LOE writing, and for averaging period purposes. | ||||
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 CALFED Mercury Project QAPP (Puckett and van Buuren, 2000). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements. | ||||