| Water Body Name: | Oroville, Lake |
| Water Body ID: | CAL5181200020020430135809 |
| Water Body Type: | Lake & Reservoir |
DECISION ID |
19103 |
Region 5 |
Oroville, Lake |
||
| Pollutant: | Aluminum |
| 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)(2010) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | The decision has not changed. Region 5 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle.
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. A small portion 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. Thirty-nine of 651samples exceeded the chemical constituent water quality 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. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | The decision has not changed. Region 5 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle.
No new data were assessed for 2008. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available and are assessed. |
| State Board Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | The decision has not changed. Region 5 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle.
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. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 722 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Aluminum | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 651 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 39 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Thirty-nine out of 651 samples exceeded the MCL criteria. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | 0.2 ppm secondary MCL (CCR, Title 22). | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | |||||
| Temporal Representation: | |||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | QA Info Missing | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
26552 |
Region 5 |
Oroville, Lake |
||
| 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)(2010) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | The decision has not changed. Region 5 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle.
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 97 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. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | The decision has not changed. Region 5 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle.
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. |
| State Board Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | The decision has not changed. Region 5 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle.
After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 22353 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Copper | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Aquatic Life Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 197 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | 197 samples were taken from Lake Oroville between April 2002 and April 2004. Zero of the 197 samples exceeded guidelines for dissolved copper. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Project effects on water quality designated beneficial uses for surface waters, and results for bacterial monitoring of swimming areas in 2003. FERC Project No. 2100. Sacramento, CA: State of CA Department of Water Resources | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule Criteria (USEPA) - Freshwater Aquatic Life ProtectionContinuous Concentration (4-day Average) calculated based on the fallowing formula (e{.8545xLN[hardness]}-1.702) x(0.960) which incorporates hardnessU.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 | ||||
| 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: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from Lake Oroville (south fork, north fork, middle fork, main body, dam). | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected between March 2002 and April 2004. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Data quality: Good. 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 the State of California Resources Agency Department of Water Resources (DWR, 2005). Quality Assurance Project Plan for Oroville Facilities Relicensing
FERC Project No. 2100 SP-W1. Department of Water Resources (DWR). Oroville Facilities Relicensing FERC Project No. 2100. January 2005. |
||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
26326 |
Region 5 |
Oroville, Lake |
||
| Pollutant: | Fecal Coliform |
| 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)(2010) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | The decision has not changed. Region 5 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle.
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. 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 101 samples exceeded the fecal coliform objective 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. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | The decision has not changed. Region 5 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle.
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. |
| State Board Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | The decision has not changed. Region 5 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle.
After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 22354 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Fecal Coliform | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Water Contact Recreation | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 101 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PATHOGEN MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | The Department of Water Resources collected 103 samples from April 2002 to April 2004. The geometric mean per month per site was calculated from the samples and 0 out of the 101 calculated geometric means exceeded the evaluation objective. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Project effects on water quality designated beneficial uses for surface waters, and results for bacterial monitoring of swimming areas in 2003. FERC Project No. 2100. Sacramento, CA: State of CA Department of Water Resources | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | In waters designated for contact recreation (REC-1), the fecal coliform concentration based on a minimum of not less than five samples for any 30-day period shall not exceed a geometric mean of 200/100 ml, nor shall more than ten percent of the total number of samples taken during any 30-day period exceed 400/100 ml. | ||||
| 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: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from Lake Oroville at 5 locations: 1)North Fork, 2) Middle Fork, 3) South Fork, 4) Main Body. and 5) At Dam. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Sampling occurred from April 2002 to April 2004. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Data quality: Good. 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 the State of California Resources Agency Department of Water Resources (DWR, 2005). Quality Assurance Project Plan for Oroville Facilities Relicensing
FERC Project No. 2100 SP-W1. Department of Water Resources (DWR). Oroville Facilities Relicensing FERC Project No. 2100. January 2005. |
||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
26290 |
Region 5 |
Oroville, Lake |
||
| 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)(2010) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | The decision has not changed. Region 5 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle.
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 123 samples exceeded the Basin Plan 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: | The decision has not changed. Region 5 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle.
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. |
| State Board Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | The decision has not changed. Region 5 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle.
After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 22318 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Lead | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Aquatic Life Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 123 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | 123 samples were taken from Lake Oroville between 2002 and 2004. 0 of the 123 samples exceed guidelines for dissolved lead. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Project effects on water quality designated beneficial uses for surface waters, and results for bacterial monitoring of swimming areas in 2003. FERC Project No. 2100. Sacramento, CA: State of CA Department of Water Resources | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| 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 | ||||
| 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: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the Main Body, the Middle Fork, North Fork, South Fork and at the Dam of Lake Oroville. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected from April 2002 through April 2004. Samples were collected at monthly intervals. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Data quality: Excellent. Quality Control for all of the elements described in section 6.1.4 of the Policy was conducted in accordance with the Laboratory QAPP developed by the State of California Resources Agency Department of Water Resources (DWR, 2005). Quality Assurance Project Plan for Oroville Facilities Relicensing
FERC Project No. 2100 SP-W1. Department of Water Resources (DWR). Oroville Facilities Relicensing FERC Project No. 2100. January 2005. |
||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
26551 |
Region 5 |
Oroville, Lake |
||
| 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)(2010) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | The decision has not changed. Region 5 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle.
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. 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 28 samples fell below the criteria 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. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | The decision has not changed. Region 5 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle.
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. |
| State Board Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | The decision has not changed. Region 5 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle.
After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 22335 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Oxygen, Dissolved | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Aquatic Life Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 28 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | 28 samples were taken from the surface (at depth of 0.15 meter) of Lake Oroville between April 2002 and April 2004. 0 sample exceeds the minimum dissolved oxygen concentration (7 mg/L) and 0 sample exceeds 5 mg/L. 1462 samples were taken from variable depths of Lake Oroville between April 2002 and April 2004. 64 samples exceed 7 mg/L and 5 samples exceed 5 mg/L. The 64 samples (DO<7 mg/L) were measured at water depth below 3 meters and the 5 samples (DO<5 mg/L) were measured at water depth below 17 meters. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Project effects on water quality designated beneficial uses for surface waters, and results for bacterial monitoring of swimming areas in 2003. FERC Project No. 2100. Sacramento, CA: State of CA Department of Water Resources | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Sacramento/San Joaquin River Basin Plan (CVRWQCB, 2007a)(COLD), Minimum Dissolved Oxygen concentration of 7mg/L(SPWN), Minimum Dissolved Oxygen concentration of 7mg/L(WARM), Minimum Dissolved Oxygen concentration of 5mg/L | ||||
| 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: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from Lake Oroville main body. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected between April 2002 and April 2004 monthly. Some samples were taken at one-meter depth interval between 1 and 150 meters. Surface water was taken at 0.15 meter. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Data quality: Good. 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 the State of California Resources Agency Department of Water Resources (DWR, 2005). Quality Assurance Project Plan for Oroville Facilities Relicensing
FERC Project No. 2100 SP-W1. Department of Water Resources (DWR). Oroville Facilities Relicensing FERC Project No. 2100. January 2005. |
||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
25229 |
Region 5 |
Oroville, Lake |
||
| Pollutant: | Mercury |
| Final Listing Decision: | List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2010) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Sources: | Source Unknown |
| Expected TMDL Completion Date: | 2021 |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | The decision has not changed. Region 5 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle.
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. Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. One hunderd four samples exceed the water quality objective. 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. One hundred four of 156 samples exceed the USEPA fish tissue criterion for human health and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. In addition, zero out of 80 water samples exceed the USEPA (CTR) mercury-based numeric criterion for human health. This number of exceedances 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: | The decision has not changed. Region 5 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle.
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. |
| State Board Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | The decision has not changed. Region 5 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle.
After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 31045 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Mercury | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
| Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
| Fraction: | Fish fillet | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 48 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 31 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Fish tissue analysis | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Fish were collected for tissue analysis at four locations from Lake Oroville. A total of 48 sample composites were generated from two species: Smallmouth Bass (44) and Common Carp (4). Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009). A total of 31 out of 48 samples exceeded the OHHEA fish tissue screening value for human health. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data associated with report entitled: Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA | ||||
| Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA | |||||
| Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 | |||||
| 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. The objective applies regardless of whether the toxicity is caused by a single substance or the interactive effect of multiple substances. | ||||
| 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: | Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Screening Value of 0.3 mg/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 1999). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Prevalence of Selected Target Chemical Contaminants in Sport Fish From Two California Lakes: Public health designed screening study. Sacramento, CA: Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from four locations in Lake Oroville. As discussed in the Lakes and Reservoirs Report (SWAMP, 2009), individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody with an approximate one-mile diameter, from which multiple fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody. Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008). | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected on August 22, 2007 | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | There are no known environmental conditions (e.g., seasonality, land use practices, fire events, storms, etc.) that are related to these data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in "Quality Assurance Project Plan Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2008). | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs. Moss Landing Marine Labs. Prepared for SWAMP BOG, 49 pages plus appendices and attachments | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 22043 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Mercury | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
| Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 101 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 70 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Fish were sampled for tissue analysis at six locations from Lake Oroville. 1) Spillway Arm near the Intake Structure: 11 of 12 samples exceeded 0.3 ppm; 0.35 ppm average wet weight concentration. 2) Bidwell Marina Arm: 13 of 14 samples exceeded 0.3 ppm; 0.51 ppm average wet weight concentration. 3) South Fork Arm near McCabe Cove: 13 of 19 samples exceeded 0.3 ppm; 0.45 ppm average wet weight concentration. 4) Upper Middle Fork Arm: 18 of 21 samples exceeded 0.3 ppm; 0.46 ppm average wet weight concentration. 5) North Fork Arm near Bloomer Canyon: 7 of 15 samples exceeded 0.3 ppm; 0.31 ppm average wet weight concentration. 6) Lime Saddle Marina: 8 of 20 samples exceeded 0.3 ppm; 0.31 ppm average wet weight concentration. Fish tissue was analyzed from Black Crappie, Bluegill, Carp, Channel Catfish, Coho Salmon, Green Sunfish, Largemouth Bass and Spotted Bass. All 101 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: | Reports, data files, and QAPP documentation for characterization of surface waters of Lake Oroville and the Feather River (Butte County), associated with the Oroville Facilities Hydroelectric Project (FERC #2100). | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. The objective applies regardless of whether the toxicity is caused by a single substance or the interactive effect of multiple substances. | ||||
| 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 USEPA Fish Tissue Residue Criterion for methylmercury in fish is 0.3 mg/kg (0.3 ppm, wet weight) 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 six locations throughout Lake Oroville: two locations from the North Fork Arm (Lime Saddle Marina and North Fork Arm near Bloomer Canyon); and one location each from the upper Middle Fork Arm, South Fork Arm near McCabe Cove, Bidwell Canyon Arm and Spillway Arm near the Intake Structure. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Fish samples were collected during seven sampling events from 3/10/2003 to 10/30/2003. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Significant gold mining activity occurred during the Gold Rush era within the Lake Oroville watershed and the lands inundated by Lake Oroville. In addition, small-scale commercial and recreational gold mining activities presently continue in the upper Feather River watershed upstream of Lake Oroville (DWR, 2006). | ||||
| QAPP Information: | Data quality: Excellent.. Quality control for sample collection, preparation, handling, and analyses were conducted in accordance with the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan (Puckett, 2002) with the following exception: instead of wrapping fish in Teflon sheets before being frozen and transported to the laboratory, the fish were wrapped in aluminum foil (dull side to skin). This wrapping method should not have affected mercury concentrations. Quality control procedures for selection of target fish species and compositing of samples followed the General Protocol for Sport Fish Sampling and Analysis developed by OEHHA (Gassel and Brodberg, 2005). | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 22100 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Mercury | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 80 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | A total of 246 water samples were collected at five locations from Lake Oroville representing eighty 30-day average samples. None of the eighty 30-day average samples exceeded the USEPA (CTR) mercury-based numeric criterion for human health. The total recoverable mercury concentrations in water ranged from 0.2 ng/l to 11.9 ng/l with an average of 8.4 ng/l for the eighty 30-day average samples. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Reports, data files, and QAPP documentation for characterization of surface waters of Lake Oroville and the Feather River (Butte County), associated with the Oroville Facilities Hydroelectric Project (FERC #2100). | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The USEPA (CTR) numeric criterion for the protection of human health for the consumption of both water and fish that live in the water is 50 ng/l (30-day average) for total recoverable mercury (40 CFR 131.38). | ||||
| 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 | ||||
| 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: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected at five locations throughout Lake Oroville: from the North Fork Arm, the Middle Fork Arm, the South Fork Arm, the main body of the lake and near the Oroville Dam Spillway. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Water samples were collected during 70 sampling events from 4/23/2002 to 4/26/2004. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Significant gold mining activity occurred during the Gold Rush era within the Lake Oroville watershed and the lands inundated by Lake Oroville. In addition, small-scale commercial and recreational gold mining activities presently continue in the upper Feather River watershed upstream of Lake Oroville (DWR, 2006). | ||||
| 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 QAPP developed by the State of California Resources Agency, Department of Water Resources (DWR, 2005). | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Reports, data files, and QAPP documentation for characterization of surface waters of Lake Oroville and the Feather River (Butte County), associated with the Oroville Facilities Hydroelectric Project (FERC #2100). | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 22044 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Mercury | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
| Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 7 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 3 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Fish were sampled for tissue analysis at four locations from Lake Oroville. 1) South Fork Arm near McCabe Cove: 1 of 2 composite samples exceeded 0.3 ppm; 0.23 and 0.34 ppm. 2) Upper Middle Fork Arm: 1 of 1 composite samples exceeded 0.3 ppm; 0.70 ppm. 3) North Fork Arm near Bloomer Canyon: 0 of 2 composite samples exceeded 0.3 ppm; 0.12 and 0.23 ppm. 4) Lime Saddle Marina: 1 of 2 composite samples exceeded 0.3 ppm; 0.20 and 0.55 ppm. Fish tissue was analyzed from Largemouth Bass and Spotted Bass. All 7 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: | Mercury Contamination in Fish from Northern California Lakes and Reservoirs. State of California. The Resources Agency. Department of Water Resources. Northern District. July 2007 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. The objective applies regardless of whether the toxicity is caused by a single substance or the interactive effect of multiple substances. | ||||
| 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 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 four locations throughout Lake Oroville: two locations from the North Fork Arm (Lime Saddle Marina and North Fork Arm near Bloomer Canyon); and one location each from the upper Middle Fork Arm and South Fork Arm near McCabe Cove. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Fish samples were collected during the spring and summer of 2000 and 2001. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Significant gold mining activity occurred during the Gold Rush era within the Lake Oroville watershed and the lands inundated by Lake Oroville. In addition, small-scale commercial and recreational gold mining activities presently continue in the upper Feather River watershed upstream of Lake Oroville (DWR, 2006). | ||||
| QAPP Information: | Data quality: Excellent.. Quality control for sample collection, preparation, handling, and analyses were conducted in accordance with the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan (Puckett, 2002) with the following exception: instead of wrapping fish in Teflon sheets before being frozen and transported to the laboratory, the fish were wrapped in aluminum foil (dull side to skin). This wrapping method should not have affected mercury concentrations. Quality control procedures for selection of target fish species and compositing of samples followed the General Protocol for Sport Fish Sampling and Analysis developed by OEHHA (Gassel and Brodberg, 2005). | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
24988 |
Region 5 |
Oroville, Lake |
||
| Pollutant: | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) |
| Final Listing Decision: | List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2010) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Sources: | Source Unknown |
| Expected TMDL Completion Date: | 2021 |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | The decision has not changed. Region 5 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle.
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. Thirty-three 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 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. Thirty-three of 38 samples exceed the OEHHA fish contaminant goal for 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. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | The decision has not changed. Region 5 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle.
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. |
| State Board Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | The decision has not changed. Region 5 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle.
After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 22371 | ||||
| Pollutant: | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
| Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
| Fraction: | Fish fillet | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 19 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 19 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Samples were analyzed for the presence of 48 individual PCB congeners and Aroclors 1254 and 1260. Data evaluated were the sum of PCB congeners (total PCBs), reported as ng/g, wet weight. OEHHA and SWAMP recommend use of total PCBs for evaluating contamination.Fish were collected at eight locations in Lake Oroville:Spillway Arm near the Intake Structure: 2 of 2 composite samples (spotted bass and channel catfish) exceeded 3.6 ng/g. Bidwell Marina Arm: 2 of 2 composite samples (spotted bass and channel catfish) exceeded 3.6 ng/g. South Fork Arm near McCabe Cove: 2 of 2 composite samples (spotted bass and channel catfish) exceeded 3.6 ng/g. South Fork Arm, Lower Site: 2 of 2 composite samples (spotted bass and channel catfish) exceeded 3.6 ng/g. Middle Fork Arm, Upper Site: 2 of 2 composite samples (spotted bass and channel catfish) exceeded 3.6 ng/g. Middle Fork Arm, Lower Site: 2 of 2 composite samples (spotted bass and channel catfish) exceeded 3.6 ng/g. North Fork Arm near Bloomer Canyon: 3 of 3 composite (channel catfish, common carp, and spotted bass) exceeded 3.6 ng/g. North Fork Arm near Foreman Creek: 4 of 4 composite (channel catfish, white catfish, common carp, and spotted bass) exceeded 3.6 ng/g. The average of total PCBs in the Lake Oroville samples was 30.5 ng/g. The range was 4.7 to 88.8. Composites of channel catfish had the highest concentrations. The lowest concentrations were found in spotted bass composite samples.The fish sampled had total lengths greater than 150 mm. Composite samples were comprised of fillet samples from up to 12 individual fish of the same species. Most composites were composed of fish with no greater than 25% difference in fork length between the largest and smallest fish. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Oroville Facilities Relicensing-FERC Project No. 2100. Contaminant accumulation in fish, sediments, and the aquatic food chain. Sacramento, CA: State of CA Department of Water Resources | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. The objective applies regardless of whether the toxicity is caused by a single substance or the interactive effect of multiple substances. | ||||
| 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 California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Fish Contaminant Goal for total PCBs in fish is 3.6 ng/g (3.6 ppb), wet weight, to protect human health. This concentration in fish tissue should not be exceeded, based on a total fish and shellfish consumption rate of 8 ounces (prior to cooking) per week (32 g fish/day) (OEHHA, 2008). This fish contaminant goal incorporates a maximum cancer risk level of one in a million (no more than one additional cancer in a population of one million people consuming these fish). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected throughout Lake Oroville from the major arms and near the dam. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Fish samples were collected between 04/05/2002 and 08/13/2002. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | PCBs have been used in the Feather River watershed in electric power generation and in other activities. Some remediation was performed for two contamination events that occurred in the 1980s: PCB-containing oil applied to a dirt road entered the Ponderosa Reservoir in surface runoff (South Fork Feather River) and PCBs contaminated the soil and water at Belden Forebay (North Fork Feather River) after a landslide damaged powerhouses (CVRWQCB, 1987). | ||||
| QAPP Information: | Data quality: Acceptable.. 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 the State of California Resources Agency Department of Water Resources (DWR, 2005). Quality Assurance Project Plan for Oroville Facilities Relicensing
FERC Project No. 2100 SP-W1. Department of Water Resources (DWR). Oroville Facilities Relicensing FERC Project No. 2100. January 2005. |
||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 22372 | ||||
| Pollutant: | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
| Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
| Fraction: | Fish fillet | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 19 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 14 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Samples were analyzed for the presence of 48 individual PCB congeners and Aroclors 1254 and 1260. Data evaluated were the sum of PCB congeners (total PCBs), reported as ng/g, wet weight. OEHHA and SWAMP recommend use of total PCBs for evaluating contamination.Fish were collected at six locations in Lake Oroville:Spillway Arm near the Intake Structure: 3 of 3 composite samples (Coho salmon) exceeded 3.6 ng/g. The average concentration was 7.5 ng/g, wet weight.Bidwell Marina Arm: the single, individual sample (largemouth bass) did not exceed 3.6 ng/g. The concentration was 2.5 ng/g, wet weight.South Fork Arm near McCabe Cove: 2 of 2 composite samples (channel catfish and common carp) exceeded 3.6 ng/g. Middle Fork Arm, Upper Site: 4 of 4 composite samples (channel catfish and spotted bass) exceeded 3.6 ng/g. North Fork Arm near Bloomer Canyon: 4 of 5 composite and individual samples (channel catfish, white catfish, and spotted bass) exceeded 3.6 ng/g. West Branch Arm at Lime Saddle Marina: 1 of 4 composite samples (largemouth bass, spotted bass, and common carp) exceeded 3.6 ng/g. The average of total PCBs in the Lake Oroville samples was 18.0 ng/g. The range was 0.56 to 94.0 ng/g. The highest concentrations were found in samples of channel catfish and common carp.The fish sampled had total lengths greater than 150 mm. Composite samples were comprised of fillet samples from up to 12 individual fish of the same species. Most composites were composed of fish with no greater than 25% difference in fork length between the largest and smallest fish. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Oroville Facilities Relicensing-FERC Project No. 2100. Contaminant accumulation in fish, sediments, and the aquatic food chain. Sacramento, CA: State of CA Department of Water Resources | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. The objective applies regardless of whether the toxicity is caused by a single substance or the interactive effect of multiple substances. | ||||
| 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 | ||||
| California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 4, Chapter 15. Domestic Water Quality and Monitoring | |||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Fish Contaminant Goal for total PCBs in fish is 3.6 ng/g (3.6 ppb), wet weight, to protect human health. This concentration in fish tissue should not be exceeded, based on a total fish and shellfish consumption rate of 8 ounces (prior to cooking) per week (32 g fish/day) (OEHHA, 2008). This fish contaminant goal incorporates a maximum cancer risk level of one in a million (no more than one additional cancer in a population of one million people consuming these fish). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected throughout Lake Oroville from the major arms and near the dam. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Fish samples were collected during seven sampling events from 03/10/2003 to 10/30/2003. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | PCBs have been used in the Feather River Watershed in electric power generation and other activites. See also first line of evidence. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | Data quality: Acceptable.. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||