# Final 2008 California 303(d)/305(b) Integrated Report

# Supporting Information

## Regional Board 5 - Central Valley Region

Water Body Name: | Butte Creek (Butte County)
Water Body ID: | CAR5204000020020610131525
Water Body Type: | River & Stream

DECISION ID | 9576
Pollutant: | Ammonia
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision
Revision Status | Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant
Weight of Evidence: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. The recommendation is based on staff findings that 0 of 39 available concentrations exceeded the CMC Guideline for Cold Freshwater Habitat and this does not exceed the allowable frequency using Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. The recommendation is also based on staff findings that 0 of 24 available concentrations exceeded the USEPA Health Advisory for Municipal & Domestic Supply and this does not exceed the allowable frequency using Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.
SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
USEPA Decision: |

Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 9576

LOE ID: | 8043
Pollutant: | Ammonia
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water
Matrix: | Water
Fraction: | None
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat
Number of Samples: | 39
Number of Exceedances: | 0
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Zero of the 39 samples collected by the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program exceeded the evaluation guideline for Ammonia.
Data Reference: | SWAMP data entered by SWRCB into BDAT database
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. This objective applies regardless of whether the toxicity is caused by a single substance or the interactive effect of multiple substances. (CRWQCB, 2006)
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board - Central Valley Region
Evaluation Guideline: | Ammonia levels should not to exceed the calculated limit. Freshwater Aquatic Life Protection (Salmonid present) Criteria Maximum Concentration (CMC) (1-hour Average (mg N/L)) calculated based on the following formula: CMC =(0.275/(1+POWER(10,(7.204-pH))))+(39/(1+POWER(10,(pH-7.204)))) which incorporates pH (US EPA, 2005: Appendix C)
Guideline Reference: | 1999 Update of Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Ammonia
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected at Butte Creek @ Aguas Frias Road. Samples were collected at Butte Creek @ Durham/Dayton Hwy. Samples were collected at Butte Creek @ Hwy 99.
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected from December 7, 2000 to March, 18 2002.
Environmental Conditions: |
QAPP Information: | Monitoring was conducted in accordance with the State Water Resources Control Board's Quality Assurance Program Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program.
QAPP Information Reference(s):
LOE ID: | 20866
Pollutant: | Ammonia
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water
Matrix: | Water
Fraction: | None
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply
Number of Samples: | 24
Number of Exceedances: | 0
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Zero of the 24 samples collected by the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program exceeded the evaluation objective for Ammonia.
Data Reference: | SWAMP data entered by SWRCB into BDAT database
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. This objective applies regardless of whether the toxicity is caused by a single substance or the interactive effect of multiple substances. (CRWQCB, 2006)
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board - Central Valley Region
Evaluation Guideline: | Ammonia levels should not exceed 30 mg/L (USEPA Health Advisory).
Guideline Reference: | 2006 edition of the drinking water standards and health advisories. EPA 822-R-03-013
| Compilation of Water Quality Goals
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected at Butte Creek @ Aguas Frias Road. Samples were collected at Butte Creek @ Durham/Dayton Hwy.
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected from December 7, 2000 to March 18, 2002.
Environmental Conditions: |
QAPP Information: | Monitoring was conducted in accordance with the State Water Resources Control Board's Quality Assurance Program Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program.
QAPP Information Reference(s):

DECISION ID | 15007
Pollutant: | Copper
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision
Revision Status | Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant
Weight of Evidence: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 5 samples exceeded the 4-day maximum criterion for dissolved copper and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: | 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 because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.
SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
USEPA Decision: |

Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 15007

LOE ID: | 21723
Pollutant: | Copper
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water
Matrix: | Water
Fraction: | Dissolved
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat
Aquatic Life Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat
Number of Samples: | 5
Number of Exceedances: | 0
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Five samples were taken from Butte Creek in 2006. None of the five samples exceed guidelines for dissolved copper.
Data Reference: | Revised Draft of the 2007 Review of the Monitoring Data for the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Conditional Waiver Program
| Monitoring and Reporting Program, Order Nos. R5-2003-0826, R5-2005-0833, and R5-2008-0005 for Coalition Groups Under Resolution No. R5-2003-0105, Conditional Waiver of Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges From Irrigated Lands Within the Central Valley Region
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule Criteria (USEPA) - Freshwater Aquatic Life ProtectionContinuous Concentration (4-day Average) calculated based on the following formula (e{.8545xLN[hardness]}-1.702) x (0.960) which incorporates hardness.U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Federal Register, Volume 65, No. 97 (Thursday, 18 May 2000), pp. 31682-31719 [California Toxics Rule]; and Federal Register, Volume 66, No. 30 (Tuesday, 13 February 2001), pp. 9960-9962 [California Toxics Rule Correction] http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/browse.html.
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency
| Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board - Central Valley Region
Evaluation Guideline: |
Guideline Reference:
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from Gridley Road Bridge
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected between May and September 2006.
Environmental Conditions: |
QAPP Information: | Data quality: Good. Monitoring was conducted in accordance with Central Valley Water Board Monitoring and Reporting Program (order number R5-2003-0826) requirements (CVRWQCB, 2003)
QAPP Information Reference(s):

DECISION ID | 15009
Pollutant: | Escherichia coli (E. Coli)
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision
Revision Status | Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant
Weight of Evidence: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Two of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Two of 12 samples exceeded the E. Coli objective and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy. According to table 3.2, a minimum sample size of 26 is required to designate a fully supporting use rating. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.
SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
USEPA Decision: |

Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 15009

LOE ID: | 21724
Pollutant: | Escherichia coli (E. Coli)
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water
Matrix: | Water
Fraction: | None
Beneficial Use: | Water Contact Recreation
Number of Samples: | 12
Number of Exceedances: | 2
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | The Sac Valley Water Quality Coalition collected 12 samples from May 2005 to September 2006. Two of the 12 samples exceeded the evaluation objective.
Data Reference: | Revised Draft of the 2007 Review of the Monitoring Data for the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Conditional Waiver Program
| Monitoring and Reporting Program, Order Nos. R5-2003-0826, R5-2005-0833, and R5-2008-0005 for Coalition Groups Under Resolution No. R5-2003-0105, Conditional Waiver of Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges From Irrigated Lands Within the Central Valley Region
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. The objective applies regardless of whether the toxicity is caused by a single substance or the interactive effect of multiple substances.
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board - Central Valley Region
| Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria - 1986. EPA440/5-84-002
Evaluation Guideline: | The USEPA E. Coli objective of 235/100 mL in any single sample (USEPA 1986).
Guideline Reference: | Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria - 1986. EPA440/5-84-002
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from Butte Creek at Gridley Road Bridge.
Temporal Representation: | Sampling occurred from May 2005 to September 2006.
Environmental Conditions: |
QAPP Information: | Data quality: Good. Monitoring was conducted in accordance with Central Valley Water Board Monitoring and Reporting Program (order number R5-2003-0826) requirements (CVRWQCB, 2003)
QAPP Information Reference(s):

DECISION ID | 15008
Pollutant: | Lead
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision
Revision Status | Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant
Weight of Evidence: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 5 samples exceeded the 4-day maximum criterion for dissolved lead and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: | 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 because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.
SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
USEPA Decision: |

Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 15008

LOE ID: | 21681
Pollutant: | Lead
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water
Matrix: | Water
Fraction: | Dissolved
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat
Aquatic Life Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat
Number of Samples: | 5
Number of Exceedances: | 0
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | 5 samples were taken from Butte Creek between May and September of 2006. Zero of the 5 samples exceeded guidelines for dissolved lead.
Data Reference: | Revised Draft of the 2007 Review of the Monitoring Data for the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Conditional Waiver Program
| Monitoring and Reporting Program, Order Nos. R5-2003-0826, R5-2005-0833, and R5-2008-0005 for Coalition Groups Under Resolution No. R5-2003-0105, Conditional Waiver of Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges From Irrigated Lands Within the Central Valley Region
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule Criteria (USEPA) - Freshwater Aquatic Life ProtectionContinuous Concentration (4-day Average) calculated based on the following formula: (e(1.273xLN(hardness))-4.705)x((1.46203-LN(hardness))x0.145712)U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Federal Register, Volume 65, No. 97 (Thursday, 18 May 2000), pp. 31682-31719 [California Toxics Rule]; and Federal Register, Volume 66, No. 30 (Tuesday, 13 February 2001), pp. 9960-9962 [California Toxics Rule Correction] http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/browse.html.
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency
| Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board - Central Valley Region
Evaluation Guideline: |
Guideline Reference:
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from Butte Creek at Gridley Rd Bridge.
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected from May 2006 through September of 2006. Samples were collected at monthly intervals.
Environmental Conditions: |
QAPP Information: | Data quality: Good. Monitoring was conducted in accordance with Central Valley Water Board Monitoring and Reporting Program (order number R5-2003-0826) requirements (CVRWQCB, 2003)
QAPP Information Reference(s):

DECISION ID | 8976
Pollutant: | Oxygen, Dissolved
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision
Revision Status | Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant
Weight of Evidence: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Two of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Two of 73 samples fell below the miminum criterion specified in the Basin Plan and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.
SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
USEPA Decision: |

Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 8976

LOE ID: | 8044
Pollutant: | Oxygen, Dissolved
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water
Matrix: | Water
Fraction: | None
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat
Number of Samples: | 41
Number of Exceedances: | 0
Data and Information Type: | Not Specified
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Zero of the 41 samples collected from Butte Creek by the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program exceeded the Basin Plan objective for dissolved oxygen.
Data Reference: | SWAMP data entered by SWRCB into BDAT database
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Basin Plan has a minimum dissolved oxygen content level for COLD and SPWN beneficial uses of 7 mg/L.
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board - Central Valley Region
Evaluation Guideline: |
Guideline Reference:
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from Butte Creek at Aguas Frias Road, at Durham/Dayton Hwy, and at Highway 99.
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected from Dec 7 2000 to Jul 30 2002.
Environmental Conditions: |
QAPP Information: | Monitoring was conducted in accordance with the State Water Resources Control Board's Quality Assurance Program Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program.
QAPP Information Reference(s):
LOE ID: | 21720
Pollutant: | Oxygen, Dissolved
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water
Matrix: | Water
Fraction: | None
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat
Number of Samples: | 32
Number of Exceedances: | 2
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Thirty-two water samples collected as part of the Irrigated Lands Reporting Program from Butte Creek between August 2004 and September 2006. Two samples, collected from Butte Creek at Gridley Road bridge on 3 August 2005 and 21 June 2006, exceed the minimum dissolved oxygen concentration for COLD and SPWN beneficial uses (7 mg/L) and no samples collected from Butte Creek exceed the minimum dissolved oxygen concentration for WARM beneficial uses (5 mg/L).
Data Reference: | Revised Draft of the 2007 Review of the Monitoring Data for the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Conditional Waiver Program
| Monitoring and Reporting Program, Order Nos. R5-2003-0826, R5-2005-0833, and R5-2008-0005 for Coalition Groups Under Resolution No. R5-2003-0105, Conditional Waiver of Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges From Irrigated Lands Within the Central Valley Region
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Basin Plan minimum dissolved oxygen content of 7 mg/L applies to COLD and SPWN beneficial uses. The Basin Plan minimum dissolved oxygen content of 5 mg/L applies to WARM beneficial uses.
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board - Central Valley Region
Evaluation Guideline: |
Guideline Reference:
Spatial Representation: | Water samples were collected from Butte Ceek at Durnel Drive, Gridley Road bridge, and Durham Dayton Highway.
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected between August 2004 and September 2006 at irregular intervals including hourly, daily every other week, and monthly.
Environmental Conditions: |
QAPP Information: | Data quality: Good. Monitoring was conducted in accordance with Central Valley Water Board Monitoring and Reporting Program (order number R5-2003-0826) requirements.
QAPP Information Reference(s):

DECISION ID | 14225
Pollutant: | Propanil (DCPA mono- and di-acid degrad)
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision
Revision Status | Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant
Weight of Evidence: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero samples exceed the water quality narrative toxicity objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of 8 water samples exceeded the Evaluation Guideline propanil (a 5-day EC50 value of 16 ug/L, for Navicula pelliculosa (a freshwater diatom) and, therefore, none of the water samples exceeded the narrative toxicity objective, and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: | 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 because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.
SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
USEPA Decision: |

Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 14225

LOE ID: | 26068
Pollutant: | Propanil (DCPA mono- and di-acid degrad)
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water
Matrix: | Water
Fraction: | Total
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat
Number of Samples: | 8
Number of Exceedances: |
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Eight water samples were collected from Butte Creek for the Pesticide TMDL program, between May and July 2006. Zero of the 8 water samples exceeded the Evaluation Guideline and, therefore, none of the samples exceeded the narrative toxicity objective.
Data Reference: | Zipped file of Central Valley Waterways Pesticide TMDL monitoring data spreadsheets and reports
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Where valid testing has developed 96 hour LC50 values for aquatic organisms (the concentration that kills one half of the test organisms in 96 hours), the Board will consider one tenth of this value for the most sensitive species tested as the upper limit (daily maximum) for the protection of aquatic life. Other available technical information on the pesticide (such as Lowest Observed Effect Concentrations and No Observed Effect Levels), the water bodies and the organisms involved will be evaluated to determine if lower concentrations are required to meet the narrative objectives (CVRWQCB, 2007).
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board - Central Valley Region
Evaluation Guideline: | The 5-day EC50 value for a freshwater diatom (Navicula pelliculosa) is 16 ug/L.
Guideline Reference: | Ecotoxicity database. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs
Spatial Representation: | Water samples were collected from Butte Creek at Afton Road.
Temporal Representation: | Water samples were collected weekly between May and July 2006.
Environmental Conditions: |
QAPP Information: | Data Quality: Good. Sampling, analysis and QA/QC protocols are described in Calanchini (2006).
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan. Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins and Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta TMDL Monitoring for Organophosphorus Pesticides and Other Pesticides Identified as Posing a High Risk to Surface Waters. Final. SWAMP Project ID 02TM5001 (Revision 0.0). John Muir Institute of the Environment, U.C. Davis. Davis, CA. January 26, 2006

DECISION ID | 15011
Pollutant: | Sediment Toxicity
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision
Revision Status | Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant
Weight of Evidence: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 5 samples exceeded the narrative toxicity objective and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: | 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 because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.
SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
USEPA Decision: |

Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 15011

LOE ID: | 21679
Pollutant: | Toxicity
LOE Subgroup: | Toxicity
Matrix: | Sediment
Fraction: | Total
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat
Aquatic Life Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat
Number of Samples: | 5
Number of Exceedances: | 0
Data and Information Type: | TOXICITY TESTING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Zero of five samples tested with Hyalella azteca were toxic.
Data Reference: | Revised Draft of the 2007 Review of the Monitoring Data for the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Conditional Waiver Program
| Monitoring and Reporting Program, Order Nos. R5-2003-0826, R5-2005-0833, and R5-2008-0005 for Coalition Groups Under Resolution No. R5-2003-0105, Conditional Waiver of Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges From Irrigated Lands Within the Central Valley Region
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. This objective applies regardless of whether the toxicity is caused by a single substance or the interactive effect of multiple substances. (CVRWQCB, 2007)
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board - Central Valley Region
Evaluation Guideline: | Statistically significant difference from control sediment using Dunnett's test in 10-day Hyalella azteca sediment toxicity tests. Arcsin squareroot transformation was used when necessary to meet the assumptions of normality and homogeneity of variance. Steel's Many-One Rank Test was used for comparison to control if these assumptions were not met after transformation.
Guideline Reference: | Methods for Measuring the Toxicity and Bioaccumulation of Sediment-associated Contaminants with Freshwater Invertebrates, Second Edition. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research and Development, Duluth, MI , U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water, Washington, DC EPA-600/R-99/064
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from Butte Creek at Durnel Dr, Gridley Road Bridge, and on the Durham Dayton Highway.
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected August 2004, September 2005 - 2006, and April 2005
Environmental Conditions: |
QAPP Information: | Data quality: Excellent. Monitoring was conducted in accordance with Central Valley Water Board Monitoring and Reporting Program (order number R5-2003-0826) requirements (CVRWQCB, 2003)
QAPP Information Reference(s):

DECISION ID | 9577
Pollutant: | Specific Conductivity
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision
Revision Status | Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant
Weight of Evidence: | This pollutant is being considered for listing under sections 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Data is available from 1 line of evidence for this pollutant. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is not sufficient justification for placing this water segment-pollution combination on the section 303(d) list. The recommendation is based on staff findings that 0 of 44 available concentrations exceeded the water quality objective and this does not exceed the allowable frequency using Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Table 3.2 of the listing policy recommends listing if a sample size of 44 has 8 or more samples that exceed the evaluation criteria. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.
SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
USEPA Decision: |

Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 9577

LOE ID: | 20923
Pollutant: | Specific Conductivity
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water
Matrix: | Water
Fraction: | None
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply
Number of Samples: | 44
Number of Exceedances: | 0
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | None of the 44 samples collected by the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program exceeded "recommended" Secondary MCL of 900 uS/cm for electrical conductivity
Data Reference: | SWAMP data entered by SWRCB into BDAT database
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The secondary MCLs for electrical conductivity provide a range of values including a recommended level (900 uS/cm), upper level (1600 uS/cm) and a short-term level (2200 uS/cm). The recommended level of 900 uS/cm was used as it is intended to be protective of all drinking water uses
Objective/Criterion Reference: | California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 4, Chapter 15. Domestic Water Quality and Monitoring. http://www.cdph.ca.gov/certlic/drinkingwater/Pages/Lawbook.aspx
Evaluation Guideline: |
Guideline Reference:
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from Butte Creek at Aguas Frias Road, at Durham/Dayton Hwy, and at Hwy 99
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between December 7, 2000 to July 30, 2002
Environmental Conditions: |
QAPP Information: | Monitoring was conducted in accordance with the State Water Resources Control Board's Quality Assurance Program Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program.
QAPP Information Reference(s):

DECISION ID | 15010
Pollutant: | Unknown Toxicity
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision
Revision Status | Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant
Weight of Evidence: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. One of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. One of 17 samples tested with ceriodaphnia exceeded the narrative toxicity objective and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. In addition, 0 of 18 samples tested with fathead minnow exceeded the narrative toxicity objective and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Lastly, 0 of 17 samples tested with selenastrum exceeded the narrative toxicity objective and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: | 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 because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.
SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
USEPA Decision: |

Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 15010

LOE ID: | 21680
Pollutant: | Toxicity
LOE Subgroup: | Toxicity
Matrix: | Water
Fraction: | Total
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat
Aquatic Life Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat
Number of Samples: | 17
Number of Exceedances: | 0
Data and Information Type: | TOXICITY TESTING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | 0/4, 0/9, and 0/4 (0/17 total) samples, respectively, tested with Selenastrum capricornutum were toxic.
Data Reference: | Revised Draft of the 2007 Review of the Monitoring Data for the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Conditional Waiver Program
| Monitoring and Reporting Program, Order Nos. R5-2003-0826, R5-2005-0833, and R5-2008-0005 for Coalition Groups Under Resolution No. R5-2003-0105, Conditional Waiver of Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges From Irrigated Lands Within the Central Valley Region
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. This objective applies regardless of whether the toxicity is caused by a single substance or the interactive effect of multiple substances. (CVRWQCB, 2007)
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board - Central Valley Region
Evaluation Guideline: | Statistically significant difference from control using a t-test with 4-day chronic-style toxicity tests.
Guideline Reference: | Short-term Methods for Estimating the Chronic Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters to Freshwater and Marine Organisms, Fourth Edition. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water, Washington, DC EPA-821-R-02-013
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from Butte Creek at Gridley Road, Gridley Road Bridge, and on the Durham Dayton Highway.
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected from January - February 2006, July 2005 - September 2006, and January - February 2005 respectively
Environmental Conditions: |
QAPP Information: | Data quality: Excellent. Monitoring was conducted in accordance with Central Valley Water Board Monitoring and Reporting Program (order number R5-2003-0826) requirements (CVRWQCB, 2003)
QAPP Information Reference(s):
LOE ID: | 21678
Pollutant: | Toxicity
LOE Subgroup: | Toxicity
Matrix: | Water
Fraction: | Total
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat
Aquatic Life Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat
Number of Samples: | 18
Number of Exceedances: | 0
Data and Information Type: | TOXICITY TESTING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | 0/4, 0/10, and 0/4 (0/18 total) samples, respectively, tested with Pimephales promelas were toxic.
Data Reference: | Revised Draft of the 2007 Review of the Monitoring Data for the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Conditional Waiver Program
| Monitoring and Reporting Program, Order Nos. R5-2003-0826, R5-2005-0833, and R5-2008-0005 for Coalition Groups Under Resolution No. R5-2003-0105, Conditional Waiver of Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges From Irrigated Lands Within the Central Valley Region
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. This objective applies regardless of whether the toxicity is caused by a single substance or the interactive effect of multiple substances. (CVRWQCB, 2007)
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board - Central Valley Region
Evaluation Guideline: | Statistically significant difference from control using a t-test with 4-day acute-style toxicity tests.
Guideline Reference: | Methods for Measuring the Acute Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters to Freshwater and Marine Organisms, Fifth Edition. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water, Washington, DC EPA-821-R-02-012
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from Butte Creek at Gridley Road, Gridley Road Bridge, and on the Durham Dayton Highway
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected from January - February 2006, May 2005 - September 2006, and January - February 2005 respectively
Environmental Conditions: |
QAPP Information: | Data quality: Excellent. Monitoring was conducted in accordance with Central Valley Water Board Monitoring and Reporting Program (order number R5-2003-0826) requirements (CVRWQCB, 2003)
QAPP Information Reference(s):
LOE ID: | 21677
Pollutant: | Toxicity
LOE Subgroup: | Toxicity
Matrix: | Water
Fraction: | Total
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat
Aquatic Life Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat
Number of Samples: | 17
Number of Exceedances: | 1
Data and Information Type: | TOXICITY TESTING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | 0/4, 0/9, and 1/4 (1/17 total) samples, respectively, tested with Ceriodaphnia dubia were toxic and violated the narrative toxicity objective. The sample collected from the Durham Dayton Highway on 28 January 2005 exhibited a statistically significant decrease in survival of 45% (47% of control).
Data Reference: | Revised Draft of the 2007 Review of the Monitoring Data for the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Conditional Waiver Program
| Monitoring and Reporting Program, Order Nos. R5-2003-0826, R5-2005-0833, and R5-2008-0005 for Coalition Groups Under Resolution No. R5-2003-0105, Conditional Waiver of Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges From Irrigated Lands Within the Central Valley Region
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. This objective applies regardless of whether the toxicity is caused by a single substance or the interactive effect of multiple substances. (CVRWQCB, 2007)
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board - Central Valley Region
Evaluation Guideline: | Statistically significant difference from control using a t-test with 4-day acute-style toxicity tests.
Guideline Reference: | Methods for Measuring the Acute Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters to Freshwater and Marine Organisms, Fifth Edition. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water, Washington, DC EPA-821-R-02-012
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from Butte Creek at Gridley Road, Gridley Road Bridge, and on the Durham Dayton Highway.
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected from January - February 2006, July 2005 - September 2006, and January - February 2005 respectively
Environmental Conditions: |
QAPP Information: | Data quality: Excellent. Monitoring was conducted in accordance with Central Valley Water Board Monitoring and Reporting Program (order number R5-2003-0826) requirements (CVRWQCB, 2003)
QAPP Information Reference(s):

DECISION ID | 12741
Pollutant: | Mercury
Final Listing Decision: | List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision
Revision Status | Revised
Sources: | Resource Extraction
Expected TMDL Completion Date: | 2021
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant
Weight of Evidence: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Twenty-eight of 38 fish tissue samples exceeded the USEPA Fish Tissue Residue Criterion of 0.3 mg/kg (0.3 ppm) for protection of human health, and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are exceeded and a pollutant contributes to or causes the problem.
SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
USEPA Decision: |

Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 12741

LOE ID: | 21721
Pollutant: | Mercury
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue
Matrix: | Tissue
Fraction: | Total
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms
Number of Samples: | 38
Number of Exceedances: | 28
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Fish were sampled for tissue analysis at one location from Butte Creek. A total of 28 out of 38 samples exceeded the USEPA fish tissue criterion for human health. The average wet weight mercury concentration in fish tissue was 0.42 ppm for all 38 samples collected. The number of fish collected per sample, the measured mercury concentrations in fish tissue, and the number of exceedances are, by species: Black Crappie- 1 sample, 0.36 ppm, 1 exceedance; Bluegill- 1 sample, 0.27 ppm, no exceedances; Carp- 10 samples, 0.21-0.48 ppm (average 0.36 ppm), 7 exceedances; Channel Catfish- 12 samples, 0.18-0.65 ppm (average 0.40 ppm), 9 exceedances; Largemouth Bass- 12 samples, 0.28-0.95 ppm (average 0.55 ppm), 11 exceedances; Redear Sunfish- 2 samples, 0.23 and 0.28 ppm, no exceedances. All 38 samples were collected from fish with total lengths greater than 150 mm, which represent fish most commonly caught and consumed by sport fishers and their families.
Data Reference: | Fish Mercury Project, Year 2 Annual Report, Sport Fish Sampling and Analysis. Final Report. October 2007
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. The objective applies regardless of whether the toxicity is caused by a single substance or the interactive effect of multiple substances.
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board - Central Valley Region
Evaluation Guideline: | The USEPA Fish Tissue Residue Criterion for methylmercury in fish is 0.3 mg/kg (0.3 ppm) for the protection of human health. This is the concentration in fish tissue that should not be exceeded based on a total fish and shellfish consumption-weighted rate of 0.0175 kg fish/day. (USEPA, 2001)
Guideline Reference: | Water Quality Criterion for the Protection of Human Health: Methylmercury. Final. United States Environmental Protection Agency Office of Science and Technology Office of Water. EPA-823-R-01-001. January 2001
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected at one location from Butte Creek approximately 0.5 miles upstream from Butte Slough Road.
Temporal Representation: | Fish samples were collected during one sampling event on 8/15/2006.
Environmental Conditions: | Significant gold mining activity occurred during the Gold Rush era within the Butte Creek watershed (USGS, 2005).
QAPP Information: | Data quality: Excellent.. Quality Control for all of the elements described in section 6.1.4 of the Policy was conducted in accordance with the Laboratory QAPP developed by Moss Landing Marine Laboratories (MLML, 2005). This data was also collected and analyzed in accordance with the CALFED Mercury Project QAPP (Puckett and van Buuren, 2000).
QAPP Information Reference(s):

DECISION ID | 8977
Pollutant: | pH
Final Listing Decision: | List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision
Revision Status | Revised
Sources: | Source Unknown
Expected TMDL Completion Date: | 2021
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant
Weight of Evidence: | This pollutant is being considered for listing under sections 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Data is available from 1 line of evidence for this pollutant. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification for placing this water segment-pollution combination on the section 303(d) list. The recommendation is based on staff findings that 9 of 44 available concentrations exceeded the water quality objective and this does exceed the allowable frequency using Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Table 3.2 of the listing policy recommends listing if a sample size of 44 has 8 or more samples that exceed the evaluation criteria. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are exceeded and a pollutant contributes to or causes the problem.
SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
USEPA Decision: |

Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 8977

LOE ID: | 8045
Pollutant: | pH
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water
Matrix: | Water
Fraction: | None
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat
Number of Samples: | 44
Number of Exceedances: | 9
Data and Information Type: | Not Specified
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Nine of the 44 samples collected by the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program exceeded the evaluation objective for pH. The exceeded results are as follows: 11/28/2001 - a sample taken at Butte Creek @ Aguas Frias Road had a result of 9.06-. 2/8/2001 - a sample taken at Butte Creek @ Durham/Dayton Hwy had a result of 8.7-. 2/1/2002 - a sample taken at Butte Creek @ Durham/Dayton Hwy had a result of 5.8-. 12/7/2000 - a sample taken at Butte Creek @ Hwy 99 had a result of 8.54-. 2/8/2001 - a sample taken at Butte Creek @ Hwy 99 had a result of 8.78-. 3/9/2001 - a sample taken at Butte Creek @ Hwy 99 had a result of 8.6-. 8/22/2001 - a sample taken at Butte Creek @ Hwy 99 had a result of 8.71-. 12/19/2001 - a sample taken at Butte Creek @ Hwy 99 had a result of 8.7-. 7/30/2002 - a sample taken at Butte Creek @ Hwy 99 had a result of 8.94-.
Data Reference: | SWAMP data entered by SWRCB into BDAT database
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | pH levels should not be lower than 6.5 or higher than 8.5 (Basin Plan Objective)
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board - Central Valley Region
Evaluation Guideline: |
Guideline Reference:
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected at Butte Creek @ Aguas Frias Road. Samples were collected at Butte Creek @ Durham/Dayton Hwy. Samples were collected at Butte Creek @ Hwy 99.
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected from Dec 7 2000 to Jul 30 2002
Environmental Conditions: |
QAPP Information: | Monitoring was conducted in accordance with the State Water Resources Control Board's Quality Assurance Program Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program.
QAPP Information Reference(s):

DECISION ID | 4495
Pollutant: | Diazinon
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2006)
Revision Status | Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant
Weight of Evidence: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of the 45 samples exceeded the CDFG Hazard Assessment Criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: | This is a decision made by the State Water Resources Control Board and approved by the USEPA in 2006 . No new data were assessed by the Regional Board for 2008. The decision has not changed.
SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
USEPA Decision: |

Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 4495

LOE ID: | 2676
Pollutant: | Diazinon
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water
Matrix: | Water
Fraction: | None
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat
Number of Samples: | 45
Number of Exceedances: | 0
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | None of the concentrations from the 45 samples from this site exceeded the CDFG criteria. Data was analyzed using ELISA and GC/ECD/TSD. Some of the data was questionable due to a possible bias (higher diazinon conc) from the ELISA method and as such could not be used in this assessment. (Dileanis, 2003a), (Dileanis, 2002).
Data Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. Discharges shall not result in pesticide concentrations in bottom sediments or aquatic life that adversely affect beneficial uses. Total identifiable persistent chlorinated hydrocarbon pesticides shall not be present in the water column at concentrations detectable within the accuracy of analytical methods approved by the Environmental Protection Agency or the executive Officer. Waters designated for use as domestic or municipal supply (MUN) shall not contain concentrations of pesticides in excess of the Maximum Contaminant Levels set forth in California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 4, Chapter 15.
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)
Evaluation Guideline: | CDFG Hazard Assessment Criteria - 0.10 ug/L 4-day average and 0.16 ug/L 1-hour average (Siepman & Finlayson, 2000; Finlayson, 2004).
Guideline Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)
Spatial Representation: | Samples were taken on Butte Creek at Gridley Road.
Temporal Representation: | Samples were taken late January/early February 2000-01.
Environmental Conditions: |
QAPP Information: | Data from USGS reports are considered of adequate quality per section 6.1.4 of the Policy.
QAPP Information Reference(s):

DECISION ID | 4497
Pollutant: | Temperature, water
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2006)
Revision Status | Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant
Weight of Evidence: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The data provided is insufficient to determine if standards are being met or exceeded against the water quality criteria and with the confidence and power required by the Listing Policy. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. The data provided is insufficient to determine if standards are being met or exceeded against the water quality criteria and with the confidence and power required by the Listing Policy. Based on the data provided, the 7-day mean, 7-day maximum, annual maximum and maximum weekly average temperatures (MWAT) cannot be determined so as to compare to the water quality criteria as outlined in Sullivan et al. (2000) Published Temperature Thresholds-Peer Reviewed Literature. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: | This is a decision made by the State Water Resources Control Board and approved by the USEPA in 2006 . No new data were assessed by the Regional Board for 2008. The decision has not changed.
SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
USEPA Decision: |

Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 4497

LOE ID: | 2677
Pollutant: | Temperature, water
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water
Matrix: | Water
Fraction: | Total
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat
Number of Samples: | 0
Number of Exceedances: | 0
Data and Information Type: | Not Specified
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Thermal recording data loggers were deployed in pools at the fives sites within the SRCS holding and spawning reach of Butte Creek. They were set for 1-hour interval readings and recorded average daily temperatures which ranged as high as 22.9 degrees Celsius on July 23, at the Cable Bridge location. The measurements were recorded from June 1st to October 31st, 2003 at all 5 sites. Only the number of sampling days equal to or exceeding 15.0 degrees C, 17.5 degrees C and 20.0 degrees C were given for each site. The total number of samples was not specified (Ward et al. 2003).
Data Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The natural receiving water temperature of intrastate waters shall not be altered unless it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Regional Water Board that such alteration in temperature does not adversely affect beneficial uses. Temperature objectives for COLD interstate waters, WARM interstate waters, and Enclosed Bays and Estuaries are as specified in the Water Quality Control Plan for Control of Temperature in the Coastal and Interstate Waters and Enclosed Bays of California including any revisions. There are also temperature objectives for the Delta in the State Water Board's May 1991 Water Quality Control Plan for salinity. At no time or place shall the temperature of COLD or WARM intrastate waters be increased more than 5 degrees F above natural receiving water temperature. To the extent of any conflict with the above, the more stringent objective applies. In determining compliance with the water quality objectives for temperature, appropriate averaging periods may be applied provided that beneficial uses will be fully protected.
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)
Evaluation Guideline: | The guideline used was from Sullivan et al. (2000) Published Temperature Thresholds-Peer Reviewed Literature which includes reviewed sub-lethal and acute temperature thresholds from a wide range of studies, incorporating information from laboratory-based research, field observations, and risk assessment approaches. This report calculated the 7-day Mean (maximum value of the 7-day moving average of the daily mean temperature) upper threshold criterion for steelhead trout as 17.0 degrees C. The risk assessment approach used by Sullivan et al. (2000) suggests that an upper threshold for the 7-day average of 17.0 degrees C for steelhead will reduce average growth 10% from optimum.
Guideline Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)
Spatial Representation: | Daily temperature readings were recorded at 5 sites on Butte Creek - Quartz Bowl Pool, Chimney Rock, Pool 4, Centerville Estates, and Cable Bridge.
Temporal Representation: | Daily temperatures were recorded from June to October 2003 (6/01/03-10/31/03).
Environmental Conditions: | Temperatures in Butte Creek above Centerville Powerhouse averaged 3.1 degree celsius warmer (7/1 to 9/15) than LCDD (average flow of 46.3 cfs). Temperatures at Lower Centerville Canal averaged 0.6 degree celsius warmer (7/1 to 9/15) than LCDD (average flow of 108 cfs). Stream flows at LCDD were at spill levels through July 6, 2003. Temperature changes were evaluated for the period June 15 through July 6, 2003. During this period the delta-T in the bypass reach of Butte Creek (between LCDD and Butte Creek above the Centerville Powerhouse) was +1.5 degrees celsius with flow in the creek exceeding 200cfs. In comparison, the delta-T through Lower Centerville Canal (between LCDD and the Centerville Powerhouse Headworks) was +0.9 degrees celsius with an average flow of 77 cfs.
QAPP Information: | QA Info Missing
QAPP Information Reference(s):