Final California 2018 Integrated Report (303(d) List/305(b) Report)

Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed

SWAMP Data:

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. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin)

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

In freshwater sediments, the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for mercury is 1.06 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).

Guideline Reference:

Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Big Chico Creek (Butte and Tehama Counties) was collected at one monitoring site [ Big Chico Creek @ Rose Ave - 504BCHROS]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on 6/30/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 73644, Mercury	Region 5
Big Chico Creek (Butte and Tehama Counties)

LOE ID:

95468

Pollutant:

Mercury

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

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:

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 U.S. EPA 304(a)-recommended water quality criterion for concentrations of methylmercury in fish tissue of trophic level 4 fish (150 - 500 mm; fillet wet weight) is 0.20 mg/Kg.

Guideline Reference:

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:

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Project Plans prepared for Sacramento River Watershed Program


DECISION ID	91030	Region 5
Big Chico Creek (Butte and Tehama Counties)

Pollutant:	Alkalinity as CaCO3
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)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA 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. Zero of one samples exceed the water quality objective (no fraction specified) for COLD, and 0 of 1 samples exceed the water quality objective (total fraction) for COLD. 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 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. Zero of one samples exceed the water quality objective (no fraction specified) for COLD, and 0 of 1 samples exceed the water quality objective (total fraction) for COLD and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 26 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.2. 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:	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. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

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.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 91030, Alkalinity as CaCO3	Region 5
Big Chico Creek (Butte and Tehama Counties)

LOE ID:

60146

Pollutant:

Alkalinity as CaCO3

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

SWAMP data indicates that 0 of the sample results exceed the evaluation guideline value for Alkalinity as CaCO3.

Data Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Waters shall not contain chemical constituents in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin)

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Alkalinity as CaCO3 levels were assessed for the protection of freshwater aquatic life by comparison to the Evaluation Guideline value of 20,000 ug/L (National Recommended Water Quality Criteria, 2009).

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Big Chico Creek (Butte and Tehama Counties) was collected at one monitoring site [ Big Chico Creek 19 - 504PS0019]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on 6/30/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 91030, Alkalinity as CaCO3	Region 5
Big Chico Creek (Butte and Tehama Counties)

LOE ID:

60142

Pollutant:

Alkalinity as CaCO3

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

SWAMP data indicates that 0 of the sample results exceed the evaluation guideline value for Alkalinity as CaCO3.

Data Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Big Chico Creek (Butte and Tehama Counties) was collected at one monitoring site [ Big Chico Creek - 509BCCH32]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on 8/13/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan


DECISION ID	91087	Region 5
Big Chico Creek (Butte and Tehama Counties)

Pollutant:	Anthracene
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)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA 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. Zero of one samples exceed the water quality objective for COLD. 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 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. Zero of one samples exceed the water quality objective for COLD and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 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:	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. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

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.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 91087, Anthracene	Region 5
Big Chico Creek (Butte and Tehama Counties)

LOE ID:

60149

Pollutant:

Anthracene

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

SWAMP data indicates that 0 of the sample results exceed the evaluation guideline value for Anthracene.

Data Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

In freshwater sediments, the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for anthracene is 845 ug/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).

Guideline Reference:

Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Big Chico Creek (Butte and Tehama Counties) was collected at one monitoring site [ Big Chico Creek @ Rose Ave - 504BCHROS]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on 6/30/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan


DECISION ID	67683	Region 5
Big Chico Creek (Butte and Tehama Counties)

Pollutant:	Arsenic
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)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.6 two lines of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of 1 sample exceeds the guideline. 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 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. Zero of 1 sample exceeds the guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 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:	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. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

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.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 67683, Arsenic	Region 5
Big Chico Creek (Butte and Tehama Counties)

LOE ID:

60150

Pollutant:

Arsenic

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

SWAMP data indicates that 0 of the sample results exceed the evaluation guideline value for Arsenic.

Data Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed

SWAMP Data:

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. All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Sacramento River and San Joaquin River Basins).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

In freshwater sediments, the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for arsenic is 33 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).

Guideline Reference:

Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Big Chico Creek (Butte and Tehama Counties) was collected at one monitoring site [ Big Chico Creek @ Rose Ave - 504BCHROS]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on 6/30/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan


DECISION ID	91089	Region 5
Big Chico Creek (Butte and Tehama Counties)

Pollutant:	Benzo(a)anthracene
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)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA 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. Zero of one samples exceed the water quality objective for COLD. 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 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. Zero of one samples exceed the water quality objective for COLD and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 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:	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. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

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.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 91089, Benzo(a)anthracene	Region 5
Big Chico Creek (Butte and Tehama Counties)

LOE ID:

60158

Pollutant:

Benzo(a)anthracene

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

SWAMP data indicates that 0 of the sample results exceed the evaluation guideline value for Benzo(a)anthracene.

Data Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

In freshwater sediments, the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for Benzo(a)anthracene is 1050 ug/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).

Guideline Reference:

Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Big Chico Creek (Butte and Tehama Counties) was collected at one monitoring site [ Big Chico Creek @ Rose Ave - 504BCHROS]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on 6/30/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan


DECISION ID	91090	Region 5
Big Chico Creek (Butte and Tehama Counties)

Pollutant:	Benzo(a)pyrene
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)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA 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. Zero of one samples exceed the water quality objective for COLD. 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 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. Zero of one samples exceed the water quality objective for COLD and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 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:	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. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

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.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 91090, Benzo(a)pyrene	Region 5
Big Chico Creek (Butte and Tehama Counties)

LOE ID:

60159

Pollutant:

Benzo(a)pyrene

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

SWAMP data indicates that 0 of the sample results exceed the evaluation guideline value for Benzo(a)pyrene.

Data Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

In freshwater sediments, the probable effect level (predictive of sediment toxicity) for Benzo(a)Pyrene is 1,450 ug/Kg dry weight (Macdonald et al. 2000).

Guideline Reference:

Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Big Chico Creek (Butte and Tehama Counties) was collected at one monitoring site [ Big Chico Creek @ Rose Ave - 504BCHROS]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on 6/30/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan


DECISION ID	67615	Region 5
Big Chico Creek (Butte and Tehama Counties)

Pollutant:	Bifenthrin
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)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.6 two line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of 1 sample exceeds the guideline. 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 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. Zero of 1 sample exceeds the guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 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:	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. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

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.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 67615, Bifenthrin	Region 5
Big Chico Creek (Butte and Tehama Counties)

LOE ID:

60160

Pollutant:

Bifenthrin

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

The sample result did not exceed the evaluation guideline value for Bifenthrin.

Data Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

The evaluation guideline value for bifenthrin, 0.043 ug/g OC, is one-tenth of the median lethal concentration for H. azteca (LC50; 0.43 ug/g OC). The LC50 (0.43 ug/g OC) is the geometric mean of OC-normalized LC50 values for bifenthrin from Amweg et al. (2005) and Amweg and Weston (2007).

Guideline Reference:

Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5

Guideline Reference:

Whole-sediment toxicity identification evaluation tools for pyrethroid insecticides: I. piperonyl butoxide addition. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 26:2389-2396.

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Big Chico Creek (Butte and Tehama Counties) was collected at one monitoring site [ Big Chico Creek @ Rose Ave - 504BCHROS]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on 6/30/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan


DECISION ID	67621	Region 5
Big Chico Creek (Butte and Tehama Counties)

Pollutant:	Cadmium
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)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.6 two line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of 1 sample exceeds the guideline. 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 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. Zero of 1 sample exceeds the guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 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:	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. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

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.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 67621, Cadmium	Region 5
Big Chico Creek (Butte and Tehama Counties)

LOE ID:

60161

Pollutant:

Cadmium

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

SWAMP data indicates that 0 of the sample results exceed the evaluation guideline value for Cadmium.

Data Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

In freshwater sediments, the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for cadmium is 4.98 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).

Guideline Reference:

Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Big Chico Creek (Butte and Tehama Counties) was collected at one monitoring site [ Big Chico Creek @ Rose Ave - 504BCHROS]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on 6/30/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan


DECISION ID	74924	Region 5
Big Chico Creek (Butte and Tehama Counties)

Pollutant:	Chlordane
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)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA 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. Zero of one exceed the water quality objective for COLD. 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 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. Zero of one exceed the water quality objective for COLD and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 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:	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. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

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.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 74924, Chlordane	Region 5
Big Chico Creek (Butte and Tehama Counties)

LOE ID:

60162

Pollutant:

Chlordane

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Zero of 1 sample collected exceeded the criteria for chlordane concentration (Sum of trans-Chlordane, cis-Chlordane, cis-Nonachlor, trans-Nonachlor, and Oxychlordane).

Data Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed

SWAMP Data:

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. Waters shall not contain substances in concentrations that result in the deposition of material that causes nuisance or adversely affects beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

The Probable Effect Concentration for Chlordane in freshwater sediments is 17.6 ug/kg(MacDonald et al. 2000).

Guideline Reference:

Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31

Spatial Representation:

Data were collected at the following station 504BCHROS (Big Chico Creek @ Rose Ave).

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected on 6/30/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan


DECISION ID	94028	Region 5
Big Chico Creek (Butte and Tehama Counties)

Pollutant:	Chlorpyrifos
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)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 one line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The single sample result does not exceed the evaluation guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing this water segment-pollutant combination on 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 single sample result was not assessed because, after the laboratory method detection limit result was organic carbon-normalized, the result was above the evaluation guideline and, therefore the result could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. This sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples are needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision 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. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

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.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 94028, Chlorpyrifos	Region 5
Big Chico Creek (Butte and Tehama Counties)

LOE ID:

60171

Pollutant:

Chlorpyrifos

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

The sample was not assessed because, after the laboratory method detection limit result was organic carbon-normalized, the result was above the evaluation guideline and, therefore the result could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.

Data Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

The evaluation guideline value for chlorpyrifos, 0.177 ug/g OC, is one-tenth of the median lethal concentration for H. azteca (LC50; 1.77 ug/g OC). The LC50 (1.77 ug/g OC) is the geometric mean of OC-normalized LC50 values for chlorpyrifos from Amweg and Weston (2007).

Guideline Reference:

Whole-sediment toxicity identification evaluation tools for pyrethroid insecticides: I. piperonyl butoxide addition. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 26:2389-2396.

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Big Chico Creek (Butte and Tehama Counties) was collected at one monitoring site [ Big Chico Creek @ Rose Ave - 504BCHROS]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on 6/30/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan


DECISION ID	67625	Region 5
Big Chico Creek (Butte and Tehama Counties)

Pollutant:	Chromium
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)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.6 two line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of 1 sample exceeds the guideline. 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 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. Zero of 1 sample exceeds the guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 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:	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. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

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.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 67625, Chromium	Region 5
Big Chico Creek (Butte and Tehama Counties)

LOE ID:

60172

Pollutant:

Chromium

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

SWAMP data indicates that the sample result exceeds the evaluation guideline value for Chromium.

Data Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

In freshwater sediments, the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for chromium is 111 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).

Guideline Reference:

Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Big Chico Creek (Butte and Tehama Counties) was collected at one monitoring site [ Big Chico Creek @ Rose Ave - 504BCHROS]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on 6/30/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan


DECISION ID	91151	Region 5
Big Chico Creek (Butte and Tehama Counties)

Pollutant:	Chrysene (C1-C4)
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)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA 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. Zero of one samples exceed the water quality objective for COLD. 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 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. Zero of one samples exceed the water quality objective for COLD and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 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:	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. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

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.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 91151, Chrysene (C1-C4)	Region 5
Big Chico Creek (Butte and Tehama Counties)

LOE ID:

60173

Pollutant:

Chrysene (C1-C4)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

SWAMP data indicates that 0 of the sample results exceed the evaluation guideline value for Chrysene.

Data Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

In freshwater sediments, the probable effect level (predictive of sediment toxicity) for Chrysene is 1,290 ug/Kg dry weight (Macdonald et al. 2000).

Guideline Reference:

Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Big Chico Creek (Butte and Tehama Counties) was collected at one monitoring site [ Big Chico Creek @ Rose Ave - 504BCHROS]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on 6/30/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan


DECISION ID	67618	Region 5
Big Chico Creek (Butte and Tehama Counties)

Pollutant:	Copper
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)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.6 two line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of 1 sample exceeds the guideline. 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 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. Zero of 1 sample exceeds the guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 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:	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. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

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.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 67618, Copper	Region 5
Big Chico Creek (Butte and Tehama Counties)

LOE ID:

60174

Pollutant:

Copper

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

SWAMP data indicates that 0 of the sample results exceed the evaluation guideline value for Copper.

Data Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

In freshwater sediments, the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for copper is 149 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).

Guideline Reference:

Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Big Chico Creek (Butte and Tehama Counties) was collected at one monitoring site [ Big Chico Creek @ Rose Ave - 504BCHROS]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on 6/30/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan


DECISION ID	100304	Region 5
Big Chico Creek (Butte and Tehama Counties)

Pollutant:	Cyfluthrin
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)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of 1 sample exceeds the guideline. 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 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. Zero of 1 sample exceeds the guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 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:	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. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

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.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 100304, Cyfluthrin	Region 5
Big Chico Creek (Butte and Tehama Counties)

LOE ID:

60175

Pollutant:

Cyfluthrin

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Two sediment samples were collected resulting in one averaged sample value. The averaged sample result was below both the reporting limit (2 ng/g dry weight) and the organic carbon-normalized evaluation guideline value (0.11 ug/g OC) and could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the listing policy. 0 of 0 sample results exceed the evaluation guideline.

Data Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

The evaluation guideline value for cyfluthrin, 0.11 ug/g OC, is one-tenth of the median lethal concentration for H. azteca (LC50; 1.1 ug/g OC). The LC50 (1.1 ug/g OC) is the geometric mean of OC-normalized LC50 values for cyfluthrin from Amweg et al. (2005).

Guideline Reference:

Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Big Chico Creek (Butte and Tehama Counties) was collected at one monitoring site [ Big Chico Creek @ Rose Ave - 504BCHROS]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on 6/30/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan


DECISION ID	68105	Region 5
Big Chico Creek (Butte and Tehama Counties)

Pollutant:	Cyhalothrin, Lambda
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)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.6 two line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of 0 samples exceed the guideline. 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 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. Zero of 0 samples exceed the guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 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:	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. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

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.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 68105, Cyhalothrin, Lambda	Region 5
Big Chico Creek (Butte and Tehama Counties)

LOE ID:

60183

Pollutant:

Cyhalothrin, Lambda

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Two sediment samples were collected resulting in one averaged sample value. The averaged sample result was below both the reporting limit (1 ng/g dry weight) and the organic carbon-normalized evaluation guideline value (0.044 ug/g OC) and could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the listing policy. 0 of 0 sample results exceed the evaluation guideline.

Data Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

The evaluation guideline value for lambda-cyhalothrin, 0.044 ug/g OC, is one-tenth of the median lethal concentration for H. azteca (LC50; 0.44 ug/g OC). The LC50 (0.44 ug/g OC) is the geometric mean of OC-normalized LC50 values for lambda-cyhalothrin from Amweg et al. (2005).

Guideline Reference:

Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Big Chico Creek (Butte and Tehama Counties) was collected at one monitoring site [ Big Chico Creek @ Rose Ave - 504BCHROS]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on 6/30/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan


DECISION ID	68109	Region 5
Big Chico Creek (Butte and Tehama Counties)

Pollutant:	Cypermethrin
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)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.6 two line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of 0 samples exceed the guideline. 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 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. Zero of 0 samples exceed the guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 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:	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. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

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.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 68109, Cypermethrin	Region 5
Big Chico Creek (Butte and Tehama Counties)

LOE ID:

60184

Pollutant:

Cypermethrin

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

The evaluation guideline value for cypermethrin, 0.03 ug/g OC, is one-tenth of the median lethal concentration for H. azteca (LC50; 0.3 ug/g OC). The LC50 is the geometric mean of OC-normalized LC50 values for cypermethrin from Maund et al. (2002).

Guideline Reference:

Whole-sediment toxicity identification evaluation tools for pyrethroid insecticides: I. piperonyl butoxide addition. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 26:2389-2396.

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Big Chico Creek (Butte and Tehama Counties) was collected at one monitoring site [ Big Chico Creek @ Rose Ave - 504BCHROS]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on 6/30/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan


DECISION ID	91209	Region 5
Big Chico Creek (Butte and Tehama Counties)

Pollutant:	DDD (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane)
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)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA 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. One of one samples exceed the water quality objective for COLD. 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 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. One of one samples exceed the water quality objective for COLD and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 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:	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. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

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.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 91209, DDD (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane)	Region 5
Big Chico Creek (Butte and Tehama Counties)

LOE ID:

60185

Pollutant:

DDD (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

SWAMP data indicates that the sample result exceeds the evaluation guideline value for DDD.

Data Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

In freshwater sediments, the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for the sum of DDD (o,p' + p,p') is 28.0 ug/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).

Guideline Reference:

Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Big Chico Creek (Butte and Tehama Counties) was collected at one monitoring site [ Big Chico Creek @ Rose Ave - 504BCHROS]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on 6/30/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan


DECISION ID	67925	Region 5
Big Chico Creek (Butte and Tehama Counties)

Pollutant:	DDE (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene)
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)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.6 two line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of 1 sample exceeds the guideline. 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 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. Zero of 1 samples exceed the guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 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:	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. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

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.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 67925, DDE (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene)	Region 5
Big Chico Creek (Butte and Tehama Counties)

LOE ID:

60186

Pollutant:

DDE (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Two sediment samples were collected resulting in one averaged sample value. The averaged sample result exceeds the evaluation guideline value (31.3 ug/Kg dry weight).

Data Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

In freshwater sediments, the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for the sum of DDE is 31.3 ug/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).

Guideline Reference:

Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Big Chico Creek (Butte and Tehama Counties) was collected at one monitoring site [ Big Chico Creek @ Rose Ave - 504BCHROS]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on 6/30/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan


DECISION ID	91210	Region 5
Big Chico Creek (Butte and Tehama Counties)

Pollutant:	DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)
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)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA 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. Zero of one samples exceed the water quality objective for COLD. 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 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. Zero of one samples exceed the water quality objective for COLD and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 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:	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. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

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.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 91210, DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)	Region 5
Big Chico Creek (Butte and Tehama Counties)

LOE ID:

60187

Pollutant:

DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Two sediment samples were collected resulting in one averaged sample value. The averaged sample result exceeds the evaluation guideline value (62.9 ug/Kg dry weight).

Data Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

In freshwater sediments, the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for the sum of DDT is 62.9 ug/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).

Guideline Reference:

Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Big Chico Creek (Butte and Tehama Counties) was collected at one monitoring site [ Big Chico Creek @ Rose Ave - 504BCHROS]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on 6/30/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan


DECISION ID	67937	Region 5
Big Chico Creek (Butte and Tehama Counties)

Pollutant:	Deltamethrin
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)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.6 two line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of 0 samples exceed the guideline. 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 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. Zero of 0 samples exceed the guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 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:	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. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

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.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 67937, Deltamethrin	Region 5
Big Chico Creek (Butte and Tehama Counties)

LOE ID:

60313

Pollutant:

Deltamethrin

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

The sample was below both the reporting limit (2 ng/g dry weight) and the organic carbon-normalized evaluation guideline value (0.079 ug/g OC) and could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the listing policy.

Data Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

The evaluation guideline value for deltamethrin, 0.079 ug/g OC, is one-tenth of the median lethal concentration for H. azteca (LC50; 0.79 ug/g OC). The LC50 (0.79 ug/g OC) is the geometric mean of OC-normalized LC50 values for deltamethrin from Amweg et al. (2005).

Guideline Reference:

Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Big Chico Creek (Butte and Tehama Counties) was collected at one monitoring site [ Big Chico Creek @ Rose Ave - 504BCHROS]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on 6/30/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan


DECISION ID	68781	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)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	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. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the nine available water sample results exceed the evaluation guideline for diazinon. Two sediment sample results were collected the same day and the results were averaged. The averaged sediment sample result was below both the reporting limit (5 ng/g dry weight) and the organic carbon-normalized evaluation guideline value (0.11 ug/g OC) and could not be quantified with the level of certainty 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. 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:	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. The readily available data and information is sufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

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.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 68781, Diazinon	Region 5
Big Chico Creek (Butte and Tehama Counties)

LOE ID:

60320

Pollutant:

Diazinon

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Two sediment samples were collected resulting in one averaged sample value. The averaged sample result was below both the reporting limit (5 ng/g dry weight) and the organic carbon-normalized evaluation guideline value (0.11 ug/g OC) and could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the listing policy. 0 of 0 sample results exceed the evaluation guideline.

Data Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

The evaluation guideline value for diazinon, 1.1 ug/g OC, is one-tenth of the median lethal concentration for H. azteca (LC50; 11 ug/g OC). The LC50 (11 ug/g OC) is the geometric mean of OC-normalized LC50 values for diazinon (Ding et al. 2011).

Guideline Reference:

Toxicity of Sediment-Associated Pesticides to Chironomus dilutus and Hyalella azteca. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 61:83¿92.

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Big Chico Creek (Butte and Tehama Counties) was collected at one monitoring site [ Big Chico Creek @ Rose Ave - 504BCHROS]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on 6/30/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 68781, Diazinon	Region 5
Big Chico Creek (Butte and Tehama Counties)

LOE ID:

2678

Pollutant:

Diazinon

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Not Specified

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

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	91211	Region 5
Big Chico Creek (Butte and Tehama Counties)

Pollutant:	Dieldrin
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)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA 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. Zero of one samples exceed the water quality objective for COLD. 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 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. Zero of one samples exceed the water quality objective for COLD and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 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:	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. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

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.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 91211, Dieldrin	Region 5
Big Chico Creek (Butte and Tehama Counties)

LOE ID:

60321

Pollutant:

Dieldrin

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Two sediment samples were collected resulting in one averaged sample value. The averaged sample result exceeds the evaluation guideline value (61.8 ug/Kg dry weight).

Data Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

In freshwater sediments, the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for dieldrin is 61.8 ug/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).

Guideline Reference:

Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Big Chico Creek (Butte and Tehama Counties) was collected at one monitoring site [ Big Chico Creek @ Rose Ave - 504BCHROS]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on 6/30/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAMP (2002) was used for data before Septemper 1, 2008 and SWAMP QAPP (2008) was thereafter.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan


DECISION ID	90022	Region 5
Big Chico Creek (Butte and Tehama Counties)

Pollutant:	Endrin
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)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA 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. Zero of one samples exceed the water quality objective for COLD. 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 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. Zero of one samples exceed the water quality objective for COLD and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 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:	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. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

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.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 90022, Endrin	Region 5
Big Chico Creek (Butte and Tehama Counties)

LOE ID:

60322

Pollutant:

Endrin

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Two sediment samples were collected resulting in one averaged sample value. The averaged sample result exceeds the evaluation guideline value (207 ug/Kg dry weight).

Data Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

In freshwater sediments, the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for endrin is 207 ug/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).

Guideline Reference:

Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Big Chico Creek (Butte and Tehama Counties) was collected at one monitoring site [ Big Chico Creek @ Rose Ave - 504BCHROS]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on 6/30/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAMP (2002) was used for data before Septemper 1, 2008 and SWAMP QAPP (2008) was thereafter.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan


DECISION ID	87549	Region 5
Big Chico Creek (Butte and Tehama Counties)

Pollutant:	Esfenvalerate/Fenvalerate
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)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.6 two line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of 0 samples exceed the guideline. 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 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. Zero of 0 samples exceed the guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 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:	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. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

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.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 87549, Esfenvalerate/Fenvalerate	Region 5
Big Chico Creek (Butte and Tehama Counties)

LOE ID:

60324

Pollutant:

Esfenvalerate/Fenvalerate

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Two sediment samples were collected resulting in one averaged sample value. The averaged sample result was below both the reporting limit (1 ng/g dry weight) and the organic carbon-normalized evaluation guideline value (0.15 ug/g OC) and could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the listing policy. 0 of 0 sample results exceed the evaluation guideline.

Data Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

The evaluation guideline value for esfenvalerate/fenvalerate, 0.15 ug/g OC, is one-tenth of the median lethal concentration for H. azteca (LC50; 1.5 ug/g OC). The LC50 (1.5 ug/g OC) is the geometric mean of OC-normalized LC50 values for esfenvalerate/fenvalerate from Amweg et al. (2005).

Guideline Reference:

Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Big Chico Creek (Butte and Tehama Counties) was collected at one monitoring site [ Big Chico Creek @ Rose Ave - 504BCHROS]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on 6/30/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan


DECISION ID	87551	Region 5
Big Chico Creek (Butte and Tehama Counties)

Pollutant:	Fenpropathrin
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)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.6 two line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of 0 samples exceed the guideline. 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 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. Zero of 0 samples exceed the guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 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:	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. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

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.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 87551, Fenpropathrin	Region 5
Big Chico Creek (Butte and Tehama Counties)

LOE ID:

60332

Pollutant:

Fenpropathrin

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Two sediment samples were collected resulting in one averaged sample value. The averaged sample result was below both the reporting limit (2 ng/g dry weight) and the organic carbon-normalized evaluation guideline value (0.1 ug/g OC) and could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the listing policy. 0 of 0 sample results exceed the evaluation guideline.

Data Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

The evaluation guideline value for fenpropathrin, 0.1 ug/g OC, is one-tenth of the median lethal concentration for H. azteca (LC50; one ug/g OC). The LC50 is the geometric mean of OC-normalized LC50 values for fenpropathrin (Ding et al. 2011).

Guideline Reference:

Toxicity of Sediment-Associated Pesticides to Chironomus dilutus and Hyalella azteca. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 61:83¿92.

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Big Chico Creek (Butte and Tehama Counties) was collected at one monitoring site [ Big Chico Creek @ Rose Ave - 504BCHROS]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on 6/30/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan


DECISION ID	90558	Region 5
Big Chico Creek (Butte and Tehama Counties)

Pollutant:	Fluoranthene
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)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA 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. Zero of one samples exceed the water quality objective for COLD. 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 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. Zero of one samples exceed the water quality objective for COLD and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 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:	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. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

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.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 90558, Fluoranthene	Region 5
Big Chico Creek (Butte and Tehama Counties)

LOE ID:

60333

Pollutant:

Fluoranthene

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

SWAMP data indicates that 0 of the sample results exceed the evaluation guideline value for Fluoranthene.

Data Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

In freshwater sediments, the probable effect level (predictive of sediment toxicity) for Fluoranthene is 2,230 ug/Kg dry weight (Macdonald et al. 2000).

Guideline Reference:

Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Big Chico Creek (Butte and Tehama Counties) was collected at one monitoring site [ Big Chico Creek @ Rose Ave - 504BCHROS]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on 6/30/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan


DECISION ID	90559	Region 5
Big Chico Creek (Butte and Tehama Counties)

Pollutant:	Fluorene
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)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA 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. Zero of one samples exceed the water quality objective for COLD. 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 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. Zero of one samples exceed the water quality objective for COLD and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 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:	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. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

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.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 90559, Fluorene	Region 5
Big Chico Creek (Butte and Tehama Counties)

LOE ID:

60334

Pollutant:

Fluorene

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

SWAMP data indicates that 0 of the sample results exceed the evaluation guideline value for Fluorene.

Data Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

In freshwater sediments, the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for fluorene is 536 ug/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).

Guideline Reference:

Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Big Chico Creek (Butte and Tehama Counties) was collected at one monitoring site [ Big Chico Creek @ Rose Ave - 504BCHROS]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on 6/30/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan


DECISION ID	91556	Region 5
Big Chico Creek (Butte and Tehama Counties)

Pollutant:	Indicator Bacteria
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)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA 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. Zero of three samples exceed the water quality objective for REC-1. 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 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. Zero of three samples exceed the water quality objective for REC-1 and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 26 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.2. 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:	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. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

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.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 91556, Indicator Bacteria	Region 5
Big Chico Creek (Butte and Tehama Counties)

LOE ID:

60323

Pollutant:

Escherichia coli (E. coli)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Water Contact Recreation

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PATHOGEN MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

SWAMP data indicates that 0 of 3 sample results exceed the evaluation guideline value for Escherichia coli.

Data Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Waters shall not contain chemical constituents in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses.(Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin)

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

The U.S. EPA recommended objective for a single-sample maximum allowable density of E. coli in freshwater designated-beach areas is 235 MPN/100mL.

Guideline Reference:

40 CFR Part 131 Water Quality Standards for Coastal and Great Lakes Recreation Waters; Final Rule [Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 220]

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Big Chico Creek (Butte and Tehama Counties) was collected at one monitoring site [ Big Chico Creek at Bidwell Park - 520BUT901]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 8/27/2008-9/3/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan


DECISION ID	87601	Region 5
Big Chico Creek (Butte and Tehama Counties)

Pollutant:	Lead
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)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.6 two line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of 1 samples exceed the guideline. 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 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. Zero of 1 samples exceed the guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 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:	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. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

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.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 87601, Lead	Region 5
Big Chico Creek (Butte and Tehama Counties)

LOE ID:

60335

Pollutant:

Lead

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

SWAMP data indicates that 0 of the sample results exceed the evaluation guideline value for Lead.

Data Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

In freshwater sediments, the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for lead is 128 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).

Guideline Reference:

Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Big Chico Creek (Butte and Tehama Counties) was collected at one monitoring site [ Big Chico Creek @ Rose Ave - 504BCHROS]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on 6/30/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan


DECISION ID	90560	Region 5
Big Chico Creek (Butte and Tehama Counties)

Pollutant:	Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH)
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)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA 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. Zero of one samples exceed the water quality objective for COLD. 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 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. Zero of one samples exceed the water quality objective for COLD and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 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:	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. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

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.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 90560, Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH)	Region 5
Big Chico Creek (Butte and Tehama Counties)

LOE ID:

60336

Pollutant:

Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

One sediment sample and one replicate sediment sample were collected and analyzed for the SWAMP. The sample results were averaged and then assessed as a single sample result.

Data Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

In freshwater sediments, the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for Lindane (gamma-HCH) is 4.99 ug/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).

Guideline Reference:

Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Big Chico Creek (Butte and Tehama Counties) was collected at one monitoring site [ Big Chico Creek @ Rose Ave - 504BCHROS]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on 6/30/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan


DECISION ID	90561	Region 5
Big Chico Creek (Butte and Tehama Counties)

Pollutant:	Methyl Parathion
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)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA 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. Zero of one samples exceed the water quality objective for COLD. 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 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. Zero of one samples exceed the water quality objective for COLD and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 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:	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. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

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.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 90561, Methyl Parathion	Region 5
Big Chico Creek (Butte and Tehama Counties)

LOE ID:

60344

Pollutant:

Methyl Parathion

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Two sediment samples were collected resulting in one averaged sample value. one averaged sample was below both the reporting limit (10 ng/g dry weight) and the organic carbon-normalized evaluation guideline value (0.6 ug/g OC) and could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the listing policy. 0 of 0 sample results exceed the evaluation guideline.

Data Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

The evaluation guideline value for methyl parathion, 0.6 ug/g OC, is one-tenth of the median lethal concentration for H. azteca (LC50; 6 ug/g OC). The LC50 is the geometric mean of OC-normalized LC50 values for methyl parathion (Ding et al. 2011).

Guideline Reference:

Toxicity of Sediment-Associated Pesticides to Chironomus dilutus and Hyalella azteca. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 61:83¿92.

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Big Chico Creek (Butte and Tehama Counties) was collected at one monitoring site [ Big Chico Creek @ Rose Ave - 504BCHROS]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on 6/30/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan


DECISION ID	91561	Region 5
Big Chico Creek (Butte and Tehama Counties)

Pollutant:	Naphthalene
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)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA 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. Zero of one samples exceed the water quality objective for COLD. 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 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. Zero of one samples exceed the water quality objective for COLD and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 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:	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. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

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.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 91561, Naphthalene	Region 5
Big Chico Creek (Butte and Tehama Counties)

LOE ID:

60345

Pollutant:

Naphthalene

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

SWAMP data indicates that 0 of the sample results exceed the evaluation guideline value for Naphthalene.

Data Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

In freshwater sediments, the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for naphthalene is 561 ug/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).

Guideline Reference:

Whole-sediment toxicity identification evaluation tools for pyrethroid insecticides: I. piperonyl butoxide addition. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 26:2389-2396.

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Big Chico Creek (Butte and Tehama Counties) was collected at one monitoring site [ Big Chico Creek @ Rose Ave - 504BCHROS]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on 6/30/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan


DECISION ID	87603	Region 5
Big Chico Creek (Butte and Tehama Counties)

Pollutant:	Nickel
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)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.6 two line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. One of 1 sample exceeds the guideline. 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 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. One of 1 sample exceeds the guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 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:	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. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

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.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 87603, Nickel	Region 5
Big Chico Creek (Butte and Tehama Counties)

LOE ID:

60346

Pollutant:

Nickel

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

SWAMP data indicates that the sample result exceeds the evaluation guideline value for Nickel.

Data Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

In freshwater sediments, the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for nickel is 48.6 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).

Guideline Reference:

Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Big Chico Creek (Butte and Tehama Counties) was collected at one monitoring site [ Big Chico Creek @ Rose Ave - 504BCHROS]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on 6/30/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan


DECISION ID	93816	Region 5
Big Chico Creek (Butte and Tehama Counties)

Pollutant:	Nitrogen, ammonia (Total Ammonia)
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)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 one line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Four lines of evidence (two for each of two beneficial uses) are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The two water sample results do not exceed the calculated evaluation guideline for Total Ammonia, as Nitrogen. 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 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 two water sample results do not exceed the calculated evaluation guideline for Total Ammonia, as Nitrogen, and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples are needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision 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. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

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.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 93816, Nitrogen, ammonia (Total Ammonia)	Region 5
Big Chico Creek (Butte and Tehama Counties)

LOE ID:

60147

Pollutant:

Nitrogen, ammonia (Total Ammonia)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

SWAMP data indicates that 0 of the sample results exceed the evaluation guideline value for Ammonia as N, Total.

Data Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Aquatic Life Ambient Water Quality Criteria for ammonia in freshwater are pH- and temperature-dependent and they are calculated as 30-day rolling average concentrations (criterion continuous concentration, CCC) of total ammonia nitrogen (in mg TAN/L) in freshwater is not to be exceed more than once every three years on average. (USEPA, 2013)

Guideline Reference:

Aquatic Life Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Ammonia - Freshwater 2013

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Big Chico Creek (Butte and Tehama Counties) was collected at one monitoring site [ Big Chico Creek - 509BCCH32]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on 8/13/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 93816, Nitrogen, ammonia (Total Ammonia)	Region 5
Big Chico Creek (Butte and Tehama Counties)

LOE ID:

60347

Pollutant:

Nitrogen, ammonia (Total Ammonia)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Fish Spawning

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

0 of 1 samples exceed the water USEPA Temperature and pH-Dependent values of the CCC (Chronic Criterion) for Fish Early Life Stages Present for ammonia.

Data Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region (SSJRWQCB 2007): 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.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Update of Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Ammonia (USEPA 1999): Where salmonids and fish early life stages are present, the 30-day average concentration (criterion continuous concentration or CCC) of total ammonia (as mg N/L) in freshwater are not to be exceeded more than once every three years on average. The CCC values are based on pH, temperature, and the presence of early life stages of fish. The CCC formula is found on p.83 and the table of CCC values are found on p.87.

Guideline Reference:

1999 Update of Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Ammonia

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected at 504PS0019 (Big Chico Creek 19 - 504PS0019).

Temporal Representation:

Samples collected on 6/30/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 93816, Nitrogen, ammonia (Total Ammonia)	Region 5
Big Chico Creek (Butte and Tehama Counties)

LOE ID:

60360

Pollutant:

Nitrogen, ammonia (Total Ammonia)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Fish Spawning

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

0 of 1 samples exceed the water USEPA Temperature and pH-Dependent values of the CCC (Chronic Criterion) for Fish Early Life Stages Present for ammonia. The datum is reported as underneath the quantitation limit. This quantitation limit is less than or equal to the water quality standard, the value will be considered as meeting the water quality standard, objective, criterion, or evaluation guideline.

Data Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

1999 Update of Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Ammonia

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected at 509BCCH32 (Big Chico Creek).

Temporal Representation:

Samples collected on 8/13/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 93816, Nitrogen, ammonia (Total Ammonia)	Region 5
Big Chico Creek (Butte and Tehama Counties)

LOE ID:

60148

Pollutant:

Nitrogen, ammonia (Total Ammonia)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

SWAMP data indicates that 0 of the sample results exceed the evaluation guideline value for Ammonia as N, Total.

Data Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Aquatic Life Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Ammonia - Freshwater 2013

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Big Chico Creek (Butte and Tehama Counties) was collected at one monitoring site [ Big Chico Creek 19 - 504PS0019]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on 6/30/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan


DECISION ID	91563	Region 5
Big Chico Creek (Butte and Tehama Counties)

Pollutant:	Oxygen, Dissolved
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)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA 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. Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Four of four samples exceed (were less than the minimum level) the criterion required by the Basin Plan for COLD, and 2 of 2 samples exceed (were less than the minimum level) the criterion required by the Basin Plan for SPWN. 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 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. Four of four samples exceed (were less than the minimum level) the criterion required by the Basin Plan for COLD, and 2 of 2 samples exceed (were less than the minimum level) the criterion required by the Basin Plan for SPWN and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 26 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.2. 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:	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. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

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.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 91563, Oxygen, Dissolved	Region 5
Big Chico Creek (Butte and Tehama Counties)

LOE ID:

60363

Pollutant:

Oxygen, Dissolved

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Fish Spawning

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

SWAMP data indicates that the sample result exceeds the criterion for Oxygen, Dissolved.

Data Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

The minimum dissolved oxygen concentration for waters designated as SPWN is 7.0 mg/L. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin Basin)

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Big Chico Creek (Butte and Tehama Counties) was collected at one monitoring site [ Big Chico Creek 19 - 504PS0019]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on 6/30/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 91563, Oxygen, Dissolved	Region 5
Big Chico Creek (Butte and Tehama Counties)

LOE ID:

59407

Pollutant:

Oxygen, Dissolved

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Numeric data generated from 1 sample collected had 1 exceedence.

Data Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

The dissolved oxygen concentrations shall not be reduced below the following minimum levels at any time: Waters designated COLD 7.0 mg/l

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The sample was collected from the 504PS0019 station.

Temporal Representation:

One sample was collected in June 2008.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

SWAMP QAPP

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 91563, Oxygen, Dissolved	Region 5
Big Chico Creek (Butte and Tehama Counties)

LOE ID:

60361

Pollutant:

Oxygen, Dissolved

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Fish Spawning

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

SWAMP data indicates that the sample result exceeds the criterion for Oxygen, Dissolved.

Data Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

The minimum dissolved oxygen concentration for waters designated as SPWN is 7.0 mg/L. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin Basin)

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Big Chico Creek (Butte and Tehama Counties) was collected at one monitoring site [ Big Chico Creek - 509BCCH32]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on 8/13/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 91563, Oxygen, Dissolved	Region 5
Big Chico Creek (Butte and Tehama Counties)

LOE ID:

59439

Pollutant:

Oxygen, Dissolved

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Numeric data generated from 1 sample collected had 1 exceedence.

Data Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

The dissolved oxygen concentrations shall not be reduced below the following minimum levels at any time: Waters designated COLD 7.0 mg/l

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The sample was collected from the 509BCCH32 station.

Temporal Representation:

One sample was collected in August 2008.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

SWAMP QAPP

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 91563, Oxygen, Dissolved	Region 5
Big Chico Creek (Butte and Tehama Counties)

LOE ID:

60362

Pollutant:

Oxygen, Dissolved

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

SWAMP data indicates that the sample result exceeds the criterion for Oxygen, Dissolved.

Data Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

The minimum dissolved oxygen concentration for waters designated as COLD is 7.0 mg/L. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin)

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Big Chico Creek (Butte and Tehama Counties) was collected at one monitoring site [ Big Chico Creek - 509BCCH32]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on 8/13/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 91563, Oxygen, Dissolved	Region 5
Big Chico Creek (Butte and Tehama Counties)

LOE ID:

60364

Pollutant:

Oxygen, Dissolved

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

SWAMP data indicates that the sample result exceeds the criterion for Oxygen, Dissolved.

Data Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

The minimum dissolved oxygen concentration for waters designated as COLD is 7.0 mg/L. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin)

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Big Chico Creek (Butte and Tehama Counties) was collected at one monitoring site [ Big Chico Creek 19 - 504PS0019]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on 6/30/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan


DECISION ID	91562	Region 5
Big Chico Creek (Butte and Tehama Counties)

Pollutant:	PAHs (Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons)
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)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA 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. Zero of one samples exceed the water quality objective for COLD. 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 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. Zero of one samples exceed the water quality objective for COLD and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 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:	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. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

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.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 91562, PAHs (Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons)	Region 5
Big Chico Creek (Butte and Tehama Counties)

LOE ID:

60365

Pollutant:

PAHs (Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

SWAMP data indicates that 0 of the sample results exceed the evaluation guideline value for Pyrene.

Data Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

In freshwater sediments, the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity for sediment-dwelling organisms) for PAH's is 22,800 ug/Kg dry weight (MacDonald, 2000).

Guideline Reference:

Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Big Chico Creek (Butte and Tehama Counties) was collected at one monitoring site [ Big Chico Creek @ Rose Ave - 504BCHROS]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on 6/30/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan


DECISION ID	82347	Region 5
Big Chico Creek (Butte and Tehama Counties)

Pollutant:	PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)
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)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA 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. The single sample result does not exceed the evaluation guidelines. 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 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 single sample result does not exceed the evaluation guidelines, and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 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:	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. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating

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.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 82347, PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)	Region 5
Big Chico Creek (Butte and Tehama Counties)

LOE ID:

59404

Pollutant:

PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Zero of 1 sample collected for Total PCBs exceeded the evaluation guideline.

Data Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Waters shall not contain substances in concentrations that result in the deposition of material that causes nuisance or adversely affects beneficial uses (Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for total PCB is 676 ug/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).

Guideline Reference:

Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31

Spatial Representation:

Data were collected at the following station 504BCHROS (Big Chico Creek @ Rose Ave).

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected on 6/30/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan


DECISION ID	87604	Region 5
Big Chico Creek (Butte and Tehama Counties)

Pollutant:	Permethrin, total
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)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.6 two line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of 1 sample exceeds the guideline. 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 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. Zero of 1 sample exceeds the guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 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:	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. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

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.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 87604, Permethrin, total	Region 5
Big Chico Creek (Butte and Tehama Counties)

LOE ID:

60377

Pollutant:

Permethrin, total

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Two sediment samples were collected resulting in one averaged sample value. one averaged sample was below both the reporting limit (4 ng/g dry weight) and the organic carbon-normalized evaluation guideline value (0.89 ug/g OC) and could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the listing policy. 0 of 0 sample results exceed the evaluation guideline.

Data Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

The evaluation guideline value for permethrin, 0.89 ug/g OC, is one-tenth of the median lethal concentration for H. azteca (LC50; 8.9 ug/g OC). The LC50 is the geometric mean of OC-normalized LC50 values for permethrin (Amweg et al. 2005).

Guideline Reference:

Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Big Chico Creek (Butte and Tehama Counties) was collected at one monitoring site [ Big Chico Creek @ Rose Ave - 504BCHROS]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on 6/30/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan


DECISION ID	91554	Region 5
Big Chico Creek (Butte and Tehama Counties)

Pollutant:	Phenanthrene
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)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA 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. Zero of one samples exceed the water quality objective for COLD. 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 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. Zero of one samples exceed the water quality objective for COLD and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 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:	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. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

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.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 91554, Phenanthrene	Region 5
Big Chico Creek (Butte and Tehama Counties)

LOE ID:

60395

Pollutant:

Phenanthrene

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

SWAMP data indicates that 0 of the sample results exceed the evaluation guideline value for Phenanthrene.

Data Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

In freshwater sediments, the probable effect level (predictive of sediment toxicity) for Phenanthrene is 1,170 ug/Kg dry weight (Macdonald et al. 2000).

Guideline Reference:

Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Big Chico Creek (Butte and Tehama Counties) was collected at one monitoring site [ Big Chico Creek @ Rose Ave - 504BCHROS]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on 6/30/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan


DECISION ID	91555	Region 5
Big Chico Creek (Butte and Tehama Counties)

Pollutant:	Pyrene
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)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA 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. Zero of one samples exceed the water quality objective for COLD. 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 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. Zero of one samples exceed the water quality objective for COLD and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 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:	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. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

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.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 91555, Pyrene	Region 5
Big Chico Creek (Butte and Tehama Counties)

LOE ID:

60396

Pollutant:

Pyrene

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

SWAMP data indicates that 0 of the sample results exceed the evaluation guideline value for Pyrene.

Data Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

In freshwater sediments, the probable effect level (predictive of sediment toxicity) for Pyrene is 1,520 ug/Kg dry weight (Macdonald et al. 2000).

Guideline Reference:

Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Big Chico Creek (Butte and Tehama Counties) was collected at one monitoring site [ Big Chico Creek @ Rose Ave - 504BCHROS]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on 6/30/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan


DECISION ID	91620	Region 5
Big Chico Creek (Butte and Tehama Counties)

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)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA 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. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Two of three samples exceed the water quality objective for COLD. 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 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. Two of three samples exceed the water quality objective for COLD and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 26 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.2. 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:	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. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

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.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 91620, Temperature, water	Region 5
Big Chico Creek (Butte and Tehama Counties)

LOE ID:

60399

Pollutant:

Temperature, water

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

SWAMP data indicates that the sample result exceeds the evaluation guideline value for Water Temperature.

Data Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

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. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin)

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Inland Fishes of California (Moyle 1976) states that for rainbow trout the optimum range for growth and completion of most life stages is 13-21 degrees C (page 129).

Guideline Reference:

Inland Fishes of California (1976)

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Big Chico Creek (Butte and Tehama Counties) was collected at one monitoring site [ Big Chico Creek at Bidwell Park - 520BUT901]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on 8/31/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAMP (2002) was used for data before Septemper 1, 2008 and SWAMP QAPP (2008) was thereafter.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 91620, Temperature, water	Region 5
Big Chico Creek (Butte and Tehama Counties)

LOE ID:

60397

Pollutant:

Temperature, water

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

SWAMP data indicates that 0 of the sample results exceed the evaluation guideline value for Water Temperature.

Data Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Inland Fishes of California (Moyle 1976) states that for rainbow trout the optimum range for growth and completion of most life stages is 13-21 degrees C (page 129).

Guideline Reference:

Inland Fishes of California (1976)

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Big Chico Creek (Butte and Tehama Counties) was collected at one monitoring site [ Big Chico Creek - 509BCCH32]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on 8/13/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 91620, Temperature, water	Region 5
Big Chico Creek (Butte and Tehama Counties)

LOE ID:

60398

Pollutant:

Temperature, water

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

SWAMP data indicates that the sample result exceeds the evaluation guideline value for Water Temperature.

Data Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Inland Fishes of California (Moyle 1976) states that for rainbow trout the optimum range for growth and completion of most life stages is 13-21 degrees C (page 129).

Guideline Reference:

Inland Fishes of California (1976)

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Big Chico Creek (Butte and Tehama Counties) was collected at one monitoring site [ Big Chico Creek 19 - 504PS0019]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on 6/30/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan


DECISION ID	91553	Region 5
Big Chico Creek (Butte and Tehama Counties)

Pollutant:	Total DDT (sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD)
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)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA 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. Zero of one samples exceed the water quality objective for COLD. 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 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. Zero of one samples exceed the water quality objective for COLD and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 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:	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. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

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.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 91553, Total DDT (sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD)	Region 5
Big Chico Creek (Butte and Tehama Counties)

LOE ID:

60412

Pollutant:

Total DDT (sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Two sediment samples were collected resulting in one averaged sample value. The averaged sample result exceeds the evaluation guideline value (572 ug/Kg dry weight).

Data Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

In freshwater sediments, the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for total DDTs (sum DDT + sum DDD + sum DDE) is 572 ug/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).

Guideline Reference:

Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Big Chico Creek (Butte and Tehama Counties) was collected at one monitoring site [ Big Chico Creek @ Rose Ave - 504BCHROS]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on 6/30/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan


DECISION ID	94283	Region 5
Big Chico Creek (Butte and Tehama Counties)

Pollutant:	Toxicity
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)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. One lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of two sediment samples tested with Hyalella azteca exhibited significant toxicity. 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 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. Zero of two sediment samples tested with Hyalella azteca exhibited significant toxicity and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 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:	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. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

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.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 94283, Toxicity	Region 5
Big Chico Creek (Butte and Tehama Counties)

LOE ID:

60413

Pollutant:

Toxicity

LOE Subgroup:

Toxicity

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

TOXICITY TESTING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Two samples were collected to evaluate sediment toxicity. None of the samples exhibited significant toxicity. The toxicity test included survival and growth of Hyalella azteca.

Data Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed

SWAMP Data:

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. Region 5 Basin Plan.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Toxicity is defined as a statistically significant effect in the sample exposure compared to the control using EPA-recommended hypothesis testing. For SWAMP data exceedances are counted with the significant effect code SL. SL is defined as the result being significant compared to the negative control based on a statistical test, less than stated the alpha level, AND less than the evaluation threshold.

Guideline Reference:

Short-term Methods for Estimating the Chronic Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters to Freshwater Organisms. Fourth Edition. Office of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, D.C. EPA-821-R-02-013

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at station 504BCHROS.

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected in June 2008.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

All data was collected following the Standard Operating Procedures and Data Quality Objectives outlined in the SWAMP QAMP, (Puckett, 2002). QA data are included in submission.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan


DECISION ID	87655	Region 5
Big Chico Creek (Butte and Tehama Counties)

Pollutant:	Zinc
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)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.6 two line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of 1 sample exceeds the guideline. 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 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. Zero of 1 sample exceeds the guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 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:	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. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

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.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 87655, Zinc	Region 5
Big Chico Creek (Butte and Tehama Counties)

LOE ID:

60414

Pollutant:

Zinc

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

SWAMP data indicates that 0 of the sample results exceed the evaluation guideline value for Zinc.

Data Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

In freshwater sediments, the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for zinc is 459 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).

Guideline Reference:

Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Big Chico Creek (Butte and Tehama Counties) was collected at one monitoring site [ Big Chico Creek @ Rose Ave - 504BCHROS]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on 6/30/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan


DECISION ID	91564	Region 5
Big Chico Creek (Butte and Tehama Counties)

Pollutant:	pH
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)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA 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. Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. One of three zero samples exceeded (were outside of) the water quality objective for COLDM and 1 of 3 samples exceeded (were outside of) the water quality objective for REC-1. 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 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. One of three zero samples exceeded (were outside of) the water quality objective for COLDM and 1 of 3 samples exceeded (were outside of) the water quality objective for REC-1. This sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 26 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.2. 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:	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. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

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.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 91564, pH	Region 5
Big Chico Creek (Butte and Tehama Counties)

LOE ID:

60383

Pollutant:

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

SWAMP data indicates that 0 of the sample results exceed the criterion for pH.

Data Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

pH should not be lower than 6.5 or higher than 8.5. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin)

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Big Chico Creek (Butte and Tehama Counties) was collected at one monitoring site [ Big Chico Creek at Bidwell Park - 520BUT901]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on 8/31/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 91564, pH	Region 5
Big Chico Creek (Butte and Tehama Counties)

LOE ID:

60381

Pollutant:

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

SWAMP data indicates that the sample result exceeds the criterion for pH.

Data Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

pH should not be lower than 6.5 or higher than 8.5. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin)

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Big Chico Creek (Butte and Tehama Counties) was collected at one monitoring site [ Big Chico Creek 19 - 504PS0019]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on 6/30/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 91564, pH	Region 5
Big Chico Creek (Butte and Tehama Counties)

LOE ID:

60382

Pollutant:

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Water Contact Recreation

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

SWAMP data indicates that 0 of the sample results exceed the criterion for pH.

Data Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

pH should not be lower than 6.5 or higher than 8.5. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin)

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Big Chico Creek (Butte and Tehama Counties) was collected at one monitoring site [ Big Chico Creek at Bidwell Park - 520BUT901]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on 8/31/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 91564, pH	Region 5
Big Chico Creek (Butte and Tehama Counties)

LOE ID:

60380

Pollutant:

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Water Contact Recreation

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

SWAMP data indicates that the sample result exceeds the criterion for pH.

Data Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

pH should not be lower than 6.5 or higher than 8.5. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin)

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Big Chico Creek (Butte and Tehama Counties) was collected at one monitoring site [ Big Chico Creek 19 - 504PS0019]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on 6/30/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 91564, pH	Region 5
Big Chico Creek (Butte and Tehama Counties)

LOE ID:

60378

Pollutant:

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Water Contact Recreation

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

SWAMP data indicates that 0 of the sample results exceed the criterion for pH.

Data Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

pH should not be lower than 6.5 or higher than 8.5. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin)

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Big Chico Creek (Butte and Tehama Counties) was collected at one monitoring site [ Big Chico Creek - 509BCCH32]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on 8/13/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 91564, pH	Region 5
Big Chico Creek (Butte and Tehama Counties)

LOE ID:

60379

Pollutant:

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

SWAMP data indicates that 0 of the sample results exceed the criterion for pH.

Data Reference: