| Water Body Name: | Concow Creek (tributary to West Branch Feather River, Butte County) |
| Water Body ID: | CAR5186003120080623173308 |
| Water Body Type: | River & Stream |
DECISION ID |
73699 |
Region 5 |
Concow Creek (tributary to West Branch Feather River, Butte County) |
||
| Pollutant: | Toxicity |
| 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)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Sources: | A Source Unknown |
| Expected TMDL Completion Date: | 2021 |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | The decision has not changed. No new data or information were available during the 2014 Integrated Report cycle to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.
This pollutant was placed 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. Two lines of evidence based on testing with Ceriodaphnia dubia are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Four of ten toxicity test results exceeded the water quality objective for the WARM beneficial use. One of the ten samples exceeded the narrative toxicity objective for the survival endpoint and three of the ten toxicity test results exceeded the narrative toxicity objective for the reproductive endpoint, and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification in favor of removing this water segment-pollutant combination from 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 ten toxicity test results based on testing with Ceriodaphnia dubia exceeded the water quality objective for the COLD beneficial use. One of the ten samples exceeded the narrative toxicity objective for the survival endpoint and three of the ten toxicity test results exceeded the narrative toxicity objective for the reproductive endpoint, and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy., 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; no new data or information were available during the 2014 Integrated Report to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are exceeded and a pollutant contributes to or causes the problem. |
| 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: | 21889 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Toxicity | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Toxicity | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Aquatic Life Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 10 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 3 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | TOXICITY TESTING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Three of the 10 samples tested with Ceriodaphnia dubia exhibited reproductive toxicity and violated the narrative toxicity objective. Reproductive toxicity occurred in samples collected on the following dates (percent of control is indicated in parentheses): 15 July 2002 (78), 15 April 2003 (73), and 12 November 2003 (62). | ||||
| Data Reference: | Oroville Facilities Relicensing-FERC Project No. 2100. Contaminant accumulation in fish, sediments, and the aquatic food chain. Sacramento, CA: State of CA Department of Water Resources | ||||
| 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. 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: | 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: | Statistically significant difference from control using a t-test with 7-day chronic-style (reproduction endpoint) toxicity tests (USEPA, 1994). | ||||
| 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 Concow Creek at Jordan Hill Road. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected on the following dates: 15 May 2002, 15 July 2002, 24 September 2002, 12 November 2002, 18 February 2003, 15 April 2003, 15 July 2003, 16 September 2003, 12 November 2003, and 18 February 2004. Sampling events were conducted during the high temperature months of July and September, following the first flush in the fall, following winter dormant spraying in February, and again during the high runoff period in April or May. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | DWR. 2005. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Oroville Facilities Relicensing | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 21888 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Toxicity | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Toxicity | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Aquatic Life Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 10 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | TOXICITY TESTING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | One of the 10 samples tested with Ceriodaphnia dubia was toxic (survival endpoint) and violated the narrative toxicity objective. The toxic sample was collected on 16 September 2003. This sample had 60 percent survival, which represented 60 percent of control. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Oroville Facilities Relicensing-FERC Project No. 2100. Contaminant accumulation in fish, sediments, and the aquatic food chain. Sacramento, CA: State of CA Department of Water Resources | ||||
| 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. 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: | 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: | Statistically significant difference from control using a t-test with 7-day survival 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 Concow Creek at Jordan Hill Road. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected on the following dates: 15 May 2002, 15 July 2002, 24 September 2002, 12 November 2002, 18 February 2003, 15 April 2003, 15 July 2003, 16 September 2003, 12 November 2003, and 18 February 2004. Sampling events were conducted during the high temperature months of July and September, following the first flush in the fall, following winter dormant spraying in February, and again during the high runoff period in April or May. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | DWR. 2005. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Oroville Facilities Relicensing | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||