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

# Supporting Information

## Regional Board 5 - Central Valley Region

Water Body Name: | Feather River, South Fork (from Little Grass Valley Reservoir to Lake Oroville, Butte and Plumas Counties)
Water Body ID: | CAR5181105020020502143718
Water Body Type: | River & Stream

DECISION ID | 14550
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. 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. None of 20 samples exceeded the 4-day maximum criterion for total copper and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. In addition, 0 of 20 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 14550

LOE ID: | 22581
Pollutant: | Copper
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water
Matrix: | Water
Fraction: | Dissolved
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat
Aquatic Life Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat
Number of Samples: | 20
Number of Exceedances: | 0
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Asses Water Quality: | 20 samples were taken from Glen Creek between August 2003 and April 2004. Zero of the 20 samples exceed 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
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
| 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 South Fork Feather River above and downstream of Ponderosa Reservoir.
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected between August 2003 and April 2004.
Environmental Conditions: |
QAPP Information: | Data quality: Good. 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: | 22574
Pollutant: | Copper
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water
Matrix: | Water
Fraction: | Total
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat
Aquatic Life Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat
Number of Samples: | 20
Number of Exceedances: | 0
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Asses Water Quality: | 20 samples were taken from South Fork Feather River between August 2003 and April 2004. Zero of the 20 samples exceed guidelines for total copper. Zero samples exceed the 4-day average concentration level.
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
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) 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 South Fork Feather River above and downstream of Ponderosa Reservoir.
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected between August 2003 and April 2004
Environmental Conditions: |
QAPP Information: | 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 | 14551
Pollutant: | Nickel
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 44 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.
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 14551

LOE ID: | 22559
Pollutant: | Nickel
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water
Matrix: | Water
Fraction: | Dissolved
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat
Aquatic Life Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat
Number of Samples: | 44
Number of Exceedances: | 0
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Asses Water Quality: | 44 samples were taken from the South Fork of the Feather River between 2002 and 2004. 0 of the 44 samples exceed guidelines for dissolved Nickel.
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
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule Criteria (USEPA) - Freshwater Aquatic Life ProtectionContinuous Concentration (4-day Average) calculated based on the following formula EXP(0.846*LN(hardness)+0.0584))*(0.997)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 the South Fork of the Feather River downstream and above the Ponderosa Reservoir.
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected from March 2002 through April 2004. Samples were collected at monthly intervals.
Environmental Conditions: |
QAPP Information: | Data quality: Excellent. 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 | 12950
Pollutant: | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)
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 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. Four 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. Four of 4 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.
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 12950

LOE ID: | 21823
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: | 4
Number of Exceedances: | 4
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Asses Water Quality: | Samples were analyzed for the presence of 48 individual PCB congeners and Aroclors 1254 and 1260. Data considered 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 in the South Fork Feather River upstream of Ponderosa Reservoir. Total PBCs in 3 of 3 composite samples exceeded 3.6 ng/g. Concentrations were 8.7 ng/g in hardhead, 40.7 ng/g in rainbow trout, and 101.8 ng/g in pikeminnow. Fork lengths of fish samples ranged from 140-370 mm. Composite samples were comprised of fillet samples from up to 5 individual fish of the same species.
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
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
| 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: | 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 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 collected from one area in the South Fork Feather River.
Temporal Representation: | Fish samples were collected on 07/30/03.
Environmental Conditions: | PCBs have been used in the Feather River watershed in electric power generation. Some remediation was performed after contamination in the 1980s when PCB-containing oil was applied to a dirt road and entered the South Fork Feather River (CVRWQCB, 1987).
QAPP Information: | Data quality: Acceptable.. 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 | 12952
Pollutant: | Unknown Toxicity
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 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. Eleven 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. Eleven of 16 samples tested with Ceriodaphnia exceeded the narrative toxicity objective (survival and/or reproductive toxicity) and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Survival and reproductive toxicity were reported in one of 16 and 11 of 16 samples, respectively. However, both survival and reproductive toxicity were reported for a sample collected on 16 May 2002, so this was treated as a single toxic event for the purposes of determining the total number of exceedances. 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 12952

LOE ID: | 22555
Pollutant: | Unknown Toxicity
LOE Subgroup: | Toxicity
Matrix: | Water
Fraction: | Total
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat
Aquatic Life Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat
Number of Samples: | 16
Number of Exceedances: | 1
Data and Information Type: | TOXICITY TESTING
Data Used to Asses Water Quality: | One of the 16 samples tested with Ceriodaphnia dubia was toxic (survival endpoint) and violated the narrative toxicity objective. The following is a summary of survival toxicity results by sampling location. South Fork Feather River upstream from Ponderosa Reservoir - One of the 10 samples tested was toxic and violated the narrative toxicity objective. The toxic sample was collected on 16 May 2002. This sample had 20% survival, which represented 22% of control. South Fork Feather River downstream from Ponderosa Reservoir - None of the 6 samples tested were toxic and violated the narrative toxicity objective.
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
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 7-day survival toxicity tests.
Guideline Reference:
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the South Fork Feather River, both upstream and downstream of Ponderosa Reservoir.
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected from the South Fork Feather River upstream of Ponderosa Reservoir on the following dates: 16 May 2002, 15 July 2002, 24 September 2002, 12 November 2002, 18 February 2003, 15 April 2003, 15 July 2003, 16 September 2003, 12 November 2003, and 18 February 2004. Sampling from the South Fork Feather River downstream of Ponderosa Reservoir was initiated on 18 February 2003, and then occurred on the same dates as above. Sampling events were conducted during the high temperature months of July and September, following the first flush in the fall, following winter dormant spraying in February, and again during the high runoff period in April or May.
Environmental Conditions: |
QAPP Information: | Data quality: Good. 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: | 21782
Pollutant: | Unknown Toxicity
LOE Subgroup: | Toxicity
Matrix: | Water
Fraction: | Total
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat
Aquatic Life Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat
Number of Samples: | 16
Number of Exceedances: | 11
Data and Information Type: | TOXICITY TESTING
Data Used to Asses Water Quality: | Eleven of the 16 samples tested with Ceriodaphnia dubia exhibited reproductive toxicity and violated the narrative toxicity objective. The following is a summary of reproduction toxicity results by sampling location. South Fork Feather River upstream from Ponderosa Reservoir - Six of the 10 samples tested exhibited reproductive toxicity and violated the narrative toxicity objective. Reproductive toxicity occurred in samples collected on the following dates (percent of control is indicated in parentheses): 16 May 2002 (3), 18 February 2003 (87), 15 April 2003 (13), 16 September 2003 (69), 12 November 2003 (73), and 18 February 2004 (70). South Fork Feather River downstream from Ponderosa Reservoir - Five of the 6 samples tested exhibited reproductive toxicity and violated the narrative toxicity objective. Reproductive toxicity occurred in samples collected on the following dates (percent of control is indicated in parentheses): 18 February 2003 (75), 15 April 2003 (62), 16 September 2003 (71), 12 November 2003 (75), and 18 February 2004 (61).
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
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 7-day reproduction toxicity tests (USEPA, 1994).
Guideline Reference:
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the South Fork Feather River, both upstream and downstream of Ponderosa Reservoir.
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected from the South Fork Feather River upstream of Ponderosa Reservoir on the following dates: 16 May 2002, 15 July 2002, 24 September 2002, 12 November 2002, 18 February 2003, 15 April 2003, 15 July 2003, 16 September 2003, 12 November 2003, and 18 February 2004. Sampling from the South Fork Feather River downstream of Ponderosa Reservoir was initiated on 18 February 2003, and then occurred on the same dates as above. Sampling events were conducted during the high temperature months of July and September, following the first flush in the fall, following winter dormant spraying in February, and again during the high runoff period in April or May.
Environmental Conditions: |
QAPP Information: | Data quality: Good. 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):