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

# Supporting Information

## Regional Board 5 - Central Valley Region

Water Body Name: | Feather River, Lower (Lake Oroville Dam to Confluence with Sacramento River)
Water Body ID: | CAR5192200019980817161057
Water Body Type: | River & Stream

DECISION ID | 4172
Pollutant: | Diazinon
Final Listing Decision: | Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed by USEPA approved TMDL)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | List on 303(d) list (being addressed by USEPA approved TMDL)(2006)
Revision Status | Revised
Reason for Delisting: | State determines water quality standard is being met
TMDL Name: | Sacramento and Feather River Diazinon TMDL
TMDL Project Code: | 83
Date TMDL Approved by USEPA: | 01/01/2003
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant
Weight of Evidence: | This pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of samples exceeded the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification for removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 91 available 4-day average concentrations exceeded the 4-day average maximum concentration criterion and this does not exceed the 4-day average maximum concentration criterion more than once every three years. In addition, 0 of 117 available 1-hour average concentrations exceeded the 1-hour average concentration criterion and this does not exceed the 1-hour average concentration criterion more than once every three years. 4. Pursuant to section 4.11 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 removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are not being exceeded.
SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
USEPA Decision: |

Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 4172

LOE ID: | 29078
Pollutant: | Diazinon
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water
Matrix: | Water
Fraction: | Total
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat
Aquatic Life Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat
Number of Samples: | 14
Number of Exceedances: | 0
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | 39 water samples were collected from Feather River from January 2006 to February 2008, representing 14 four-day average concentrations and 39 One-hour average concentrations. None of 14 available 4-day average concentrations exceeded the 4-day maximum concentration guideline of 0.1 µg/L. None of 39 available 1-hour average concentrations exceeded the maximum 1-hour concentration of 0.16 µg/L.
Data Reference: | Revised Draft of the 2007 Review of the Monitoring Data for the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Conditional Waiver Program
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CVRWQCB, 2007).All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (CVRWQCB, 2007).
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water quality criteria for diazinon and chlorpyrifos. Administrative Report 00-3. Rancho Cordova, CA: Pesticide Investigations Unit, Office of Spills and Response. CA Department of Fish and Game
| 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: | California Fish and Game Hazard Assessment Criteria - 0.160 ug/L 1-hour average and 0.100 ug/L 4-day average concentration not to be exceeded more than once every three years (Siepmann and Finlayson, 2000 and Finlayson, 2004).
Guideline Reference: | Water quality criteria for diazinon and chlorpyrifos. Administrative Report 00-3. Rancho Cordova, CA: Pesticide Investigations Unit, Office of Spills and Response. CA Department of Fish and Game
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from two sampling sites: Feather River near Verona and above Yuba City.
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected daily from January to March 2006, February 2007, and January to February 2008 during storm events.
Environmental Conditions: |
QAPP Information: | 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.
QAPP Information Reference(s):
LOE ID: | 21814
Pollutant: | Diazinon
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water
Matrix: | Water
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: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | 14 water samples were collected from Feather River from January through February 2004, representing 5 4-day average concentrations and 14 1-hour average concentrations.0 of 5 available 4-day average concentrations exceeded the 4-day maximum concentration guideline of 0.1 ug/L. 0 of 14 available 1-hour average concentrations exceeded the maximum 1-hour concentration of 0.16 ug/L.
Data Reference: | Zipped file of Central Valley Waterways Pesticide TMDL monitoring data spreadsheets and reports
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CVRWQCB, 2007).All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (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: | California Fish and Game Hazard Assessment Criteria - 0.160 ug/L 1-hour average and 0.100 ug/L 4-day average concentration not to be exceeded more than once every three years (Siepmann and Finlayson, 2000 and Finlayson, 2004).
Guideline Reference: | Water quality criteria for diazinon and chlorpyrifos. Administrative Report 00-3. Rancho Cordova, CA: Pesticide Investigations Unit, Office of Spills and Response. CA Department of Fish and Game
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from Feather River near Verona.
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected daily during two storm events.
Environmental Conditions: |
QAPP Information: | Calanchini, H. 2006. 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. John Muir Institute of the Environment, U.C. Davis. Davis, CA.
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
LOE ID: | 2660
Pollutant: | Diazinon
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water
Matrix: | Not Specified
Fraction: | None
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat
Number of Samples: | 218
Number of Exceedances: | 13
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | There were 30 samples, which were considered to be of questionable quality and therefore were not used in the assessment of this water body for this pollutant. Of the remaining 218 samples, 13 were in exceedance of the acute criteria and 3 out of 120 samples exceeded the chronic criteria (Dileanis et al., 2002; Dileanis, 2003a; Dileanis, 2003b; Dileanis, 2003c; Larsen et al., 1998; Holmes et al., 2000; Foe & Sheipline, 1993; Larry Walker Associates, 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. Pesticide concentrations shall not exceed those allowable by applicable antidegradation policies (see State Water Board Resolution No. 68-16 and 40 CFR section 131.12). Pesticide concentrations shall not exceed the lowest levels technically and economically achievable. A trend in declining water quality has not been established per the Policy in section 3.1.10.
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)
Evaluation Guideline: | CDFG Hazard Assessment Criteria 0.16 ug/L 1-hour average (Siepman & Finlayson, 2000; Finlayson, 2004).
Guideline Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)
Spatial Representation: | In 1994, 2000-01, samples were collected along the Feather River at Yuba City and Nicolaus. In 2001 Star Bend was also sampled. Samples were collected on the Feather River near Gridley and Verona in 2003.
Temporal Representation: | Two thousand samples were collected in late January/early February. Samples were collected in late January, February and early March 2002. Samples were also collected near Verona in 2003.
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):
LOE ID: | 21808
Pollutant: | Diazinon
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water
Matrix: | Water
Fraction: | Total
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat
Aquatic Life Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat
Number of Samples: | 26
Number of Exceedances: | 0
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | 37 Water sample was collected from Feather River from January 2000 through November 2004, representing 26 4-day average concentrations and 37 1-hour average concentrations.0 of 26 available 4-day average concentrations exceeded the 4-day maximum concentration guideline of 0.1 ug/L. 0 of 37 available 1-hour average concentrations exceeded the maximum 1-hour concentration of 0.16 ug/L.
Data Reference: | Surface Water database (SWDB) for Central Valley waterbodies, 2000-2005
| Correspondence between the Department of Pesticide Regulation and Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board regarding water quality data for waterbodies in the Central Valley
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CVRWQCB, 2007).All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (CVRWQCB, 2007).
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water quality criteria for diazinon and chlorpyrifos. Administrative Report 00-3. Rancho Cordova, CA: Pesticide Investigations Unit, Office of Spills and Response. CA Department of Fish and Game
| 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: | California Fish and Game Hazard Assessment Criteria - 0.160 ug/L 1-hour average and 0.100 ug/L 4-day average concentration not to be exceeded more than once every three years (Siepmann and Finlayson, 2000 and Finlayson, 2004).
Guideline Reference: | Water quality criteria for diazinon and chlorpyrifos. Administrative Report 00-3. Rancho Cordova, CA: Pesticide Investigations Unit, Office of Spills and Response. CA Department of Fish and Game
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from Feather River at different sites: Highway 20, near Nicolaus, and Yuba City.
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected at variable intervals (daily, biweekly, monthly) from January 2000 through November 2004.
Environmental Conditions: |
QAPP Information: | Minimum requirements for the CDPR Surface Water Database are: Name of the sampling agency or organization, Date that each sample was collected, Date of each sample analysis, County where samples were taken, Detailed sampling location information (including latitude and longitude or township/range/section if available), detailed map or description of each sampling site (i.e., address, cross roads, etc.), Name or description of water body sampled, Name of the active ingredient analyzed for; concentration detected (with unit of measurement), and limit of quantitation, Description of analytical QA/QC plan, or statement that no formal plan exists. Additional optional requirements are included on DPR's webpage at http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/emon/surfwtr/caps/req.htm
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Standard Operating Procedure for Conducting Surface Water Monitoring for Pesticides
LOE ID: | 21815
Pollutant: | Diazinon
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water
Matrix: | Water
Fraction: | Total
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat
Aquatic Life Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat
Number of Samples: | 8
Number of Exceedances: | 0
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | 11 water samples were collected from Feather River in February 2005, representing 8 4-day average concentrations and 11 1-hour average concentrations.0 of 8 available 4-day average concentrations exceeded the 4-day maximum concentration guideline of 0.1 ug/L. 0 of 11 available 1-hour average concentrations exceeded the maximum 1-hour concentration of 0.16 ug/L.
Data Reference: | Zipped file of Central Valley Waterways Pesticide TMDL monitoring data spreadsheets and reports
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CVRWQCB, 2007).All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (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: | California Fish and Game Hazard Assessment Criteria - 0.160 ug/L 1-hour average and 0.100 ug/L 4-day average concentration not to be exceeded more than once every three years (Siepmann and Finlayson, 2000 and Finlayson, 2004).
Guideline Reference: | Water quality criteria for diazinon and chlorpyrifos. Administrative Report 00-3. Rancho Cordova, CA: Pesticide Investigations Unit, Office of Spills and Response. CA Department of Fish and Game
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from Feather River near Verona.
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected daily from 16 to 25 February, 2005.
Environmental Conditions: |
QAPP Information: | Calanchini, H. 2006. 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. John Muir Institute of the Environment, U.C. Davis. Davis, CA.
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
LOE ID: | 2661
Pollutant: | Diazinon
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water
Matrix: | Not Specified
Fraction: | None
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat
Number of Samples: | 15
Number of Exceedances: | 0
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Fifteen samples were taken; none exceeded the acute CDFG criteria. None of nine samples exceeded the chronic criteria.Immediately after collection, sample bottles were placed on ice and delivered to CDFA Center for Analytical Chemistry in Sacramento. Samples were usually delivered on the same day and no later than 48 hours after collection.
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. Pesticide concentrations shall not exceed the lowest levels technically and economically achievable. 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. Pesticide concentrations shall not exceed those allowable by applicable antidegradation policies (see State Water Board Resolution No. 68-16 and 40 CFR section 131.12). Pesticide concentrations shall not exceed the lowest levels technically and economically achievable. A trend in declining water quality has not been established per the Policy in section 3.1.10.
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)
Evaluation Guideline: | CDFG Hazard Assessment Criteria: 0.16 ug/L 1-hour average, 0.10 ug/L 4-day chronic average (Siepman & Finlayson, 2000; Finlayson, 2004).
Guideline Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)
Spatial Representation: | Seven sites were monitored in the Sacramento River Basin (Feather River near Nicolaus/Verona). Isokinetic, depth integrated water samples were collected at 6-10 equally spaced points across the channel width with a USGS D-77 sampler using the equal-width-increment method (EWI). Samples were collected from a boat. The PTFE bottles were used to minimize loss of pesticide due to sorption to container walls.
Temporal Representation: | Sampling frequency for each storm event was one sample/day was taken for 7 days. Two storm events were sampled for the 2004 TMDL project in the Sacramento River Basin. The first storm event (Storm 1) was the period 28 January to 6 February 2004. The second storm event (Storm 2) was the period 15-23 February, 2004. For storm 1 sampling was conducted from 28 January to 3 February. For storm 2 the sampling period began on 16 February and extended until 22 February. On 2 and 3 February, a single grab sample was collected from the bank. The Feather River was sampled on 22 February; these samples were collected with a D77 using the EWI method (Calanchini, 2004).
Environmental Conditions: |
QAPP Information: | Sample quality control was measured through collection of sequential duplicates (n=8), blanks (n=5) and matrix spikes (n=5) (Table 3). The relative percent difference (RPD) between environmental and duplicate sample concentrations of chlorpyrifos ranged from 0-104%. The RPD's between environmental and duplicate sample concentrations of diazinon ranged from 0-40%.
QAPP Information Reference(s):
LOE ID: | 29077
Pollutant: | Diazinon
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water
Matrix: | Water
Fraction: | Total
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat
Aquatic Life Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat
Number of Samples: | 16
Number of Exceedances: | 0
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Sixteen water samples were collected from Feather River in from April 2006 to August 2007, representing 16 four-day average concentrations and 16 one-hour average concentrations. None of 16 available 4-day average concentrations exceeded the four-day maximum concentration guideline of 0.1 µg/L. None of 16 available one-hour average concentrations exceeded the maximum one-hour concentration of 0.16 µg/L.
Data Reference: | Sacramento River Watershed Program Annual Reports for 1999-2000, 2000-2001, 2001-2002, 2002-2003, and 2003-2004; and BDAT data 1998-2003
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CVRWQCB, 2007).All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (CVRWQCB, 2007).
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water quality criteria for diazinon and chlorpyrifos. Administrative Report 00-3. Rancho Cordova, CA: Pesticide Investigations Unit, Office of Spills and Response. CA Department of Fish and Game
| 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: | California Fish and Game Hazard Assessment Criteria - 0.160 ug/L 1-hour average and 0.100 ug/L 4-day average concentration not to be exceeded more than once every three years (Siepmann and Finlayson, 2000 and Finlayson, 2004).
Guideline Reference: | Water quality criteria for diazinon and chlorpyrifos. Administrative Report 00-3. Rancho Cordova, CA: Pesticide Investigations Unit, Office of Spills and Response. CA Department of Fish and Game
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from Feather River near Verona.
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected bimonthly or monthly from April 2006 to August 2007.
Environmental Conditions: |
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Project Plans prepared for Sacramento River Watershed Program.
QAPP Information Reference(s):

DECISION ID | 5031
Pollutant: | Chlorpyrifos
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2006)
Revision Status | Revised
Sources: | Agriculture
Expected TMDL Completion Date: | 2019
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant
Weight of Evidence: | This pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess pollutant. None of 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 removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 14 available 4-day average concentrations exceeded the 4-day average maximum concentration criterion and a minimum sample size of 28 is required to delist according to Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are 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 removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.
SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
USEPA Decision: |

Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 5031

LOE ID: | 21807
Pollutant: | Chlorpyrifos
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water
Matrix: | Water
Fraction: | Total
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat
Aquatic Life Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat
Number of Samples: | 7
Number of Exceedances: | 0
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | 10 water samples were collected from Feather River at Verona in February 2005, representing 7 4-day average concentrations and 10 1-hour average concentrations.0 of 7 4-day average concentrations exceeded the 4-day maximum concentration guideline of 0.015 ug/L.0 of 10 1-hour average concentrations exceeded the maximum 1-hour chlorpyrifos concentration of 0.025 ug/L.
Data Reference: | Zipped file of Central Valley Waterways Pesticide TMDL monitoring data spreadsheets and reports
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CVRWQCB, 2007).All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (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: | California Department of Fish and Game Hazard Assessment Criteria - 0.015 ug/L 4-day average and 0.025 ug/L 1-hour average (Siepmann and Finlayson, 2000, with minor corrections to significant figures as described in Beaulaurier et al., 2005).
Guideline Reference: | Water quality criteria for diazinon and chlorpyrifos. Administrative Report 00-3. Rancho Cordova, CA: Pesticide Investigations Unit, Office of Spills and Response. CA Department of Fish and Game
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from Feather River at Verona.
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected daily in one storm event in February 2005.
Environmental Conditions: |
QAPP Information: | Calanchini, H. 2006. 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. John Muir Institute of the Environment, U.C. Davis. Davis, CA.
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
LOE ID: | 21813
Pollutant: | Chlorpyrifos
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water
Matrix: | Water
Fraction: | Total
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat
Aquatic Life Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat
Number of Samples: | 7
Number of Exceedances: | 0
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | 37 water samples were collected from Feather River from January 2000 through April 2005 representing 7 4-day average concentrations, 13 1-hour average concentrations, and 24 samples were not used. 0 of 7 4-day average concentrations exceeded the 4-day maximum concentration guideline of 0.015 ug/L.0 of 13 1-hour average concentrations exceeded the maximum 1-hour concentration of 0.025 ug/L. 24 samples were not used in this analysis because Limited of Quantitation (LOQ were 0.02 and 0.05 ug/L) is greater than the water quality criteria concentrations (0.015 ug/L).
Data Reference: | Surface Water database (SWDB) for Central Valley waterbodies, 2000-2005
| Correspondence between the Department of Pesticide Regulation and Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board regarding water quality data for waterbodies in the Central Valley
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CVRWQCB, 2007).All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (CVRWQCB, 2007).
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water quality criteria for diazinon and chlorpyrifos. Administrative Report 00-3. Rancho Cordova, CA: Pesticide Investigations Unit, Office of Spills and Response. CA Department of Fish and Game
| 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: | California Department of Fish and Game Hazard Assessment Criteria - 0.015 ug/L 4-day average and 0.025 ug/L 1-hour average (Siepmann and Finlayson, 2000, with minor corrections to significant figures as described in Beaulaurier et al., 2005).
Guideline Reference: | Water quality criteria for diazinon and chlorpyrifos. Administrative Report 00-3. Rancho Cordova, CA: Pesticide Investigations Unit, Office of Spills and Response. CA Department of Fish and Game
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from Feather River at Highway 20 and near Nicolaus at Highway 99.
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected daily in storm events in January and February 2000, February 2001, and February 2005; samples were collected at variable intervals in 2004 and 2005.
Environmental Conditions: |
QAPP Information: | Minimum requirements for the CDPR Surface Water Database are: Name of the sampling agency or organization, Date that each sample was collected, Date of each sample analysis, County where samples were taken, Detailed sampling location information (including latitude and longitude or township/range/section if available), detailed map or description of each sampling site (i.e., address, cross roads, etc.), Name or description of water body sampled, Name of the active ingredient analyzed for; concentration detected (with unit of measurement), and limit of quantitation, Description of analytical QA/QC plan, or statement that no formal plan exists. Additional optional requirements are included on DPR's webpage at http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/emon/surfwtr/caps/req.htm
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Standard Operating Procedure for Conducting Surface Water Monitoring for Pesticides
LOE ID: | 2658
Pollutant: | Chlorpyrifos
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water
Matrix: | Not Specified
Fraction: | None
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat
Number of Samples: | 5
Number of Exceedances: | 0
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Data was obtained from the USGS Water-Resources Investigations Report 02-410. None of the concentrations from the samples from this site exceeded the CDFG criteria. Some of the concentrations were cited as less than values and as such could not be used in this assessment.
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 - 14 ng/L 4-day average and 25 ng/L 1-hour average
Guideline Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected on the Feather River near Nicolaus.
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected over a 3 year period from 2/2000 to 2/2003. All samples were taken in late January or February.
Environmental Conditions: |
QAPP Information: | Data from USGS reports are considered of adequate quality per section 6.1.4 of the Policy.
QAPP Information Reference(s):
LOE ID: | 2659
Pollutant: | Chlorpyrifos
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water
Matrix: | Water
Fraction: | Total
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat
Number of Samples: | 14
Number of Exceedances: | 2
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seven sites were monitored in the Sacramento River Basin (this data represents the Feather River near Nicolaus/Verona). Sampling frequency for each storm event was one sample/day was taken for 7 days. Two storm events were sampled for the 2004 TMDL project in the Sacramento River Basin. The first storm event (Storm 1) was the period 28 January to 6 February 2004. The second storm event (Storm 2) was the period 15-23 February, 2004. For storm 1 sampling was conducted from 28 January to 3 February. For storm 2 the sampling period began on 16 February and extended until 22 February. Isokinetic, depth integrated water samples were collected at 6-10 equally spaced points across the channel width with a USGS D-77 sampler using the equal-width-increment method (EWI). Samples were collected from a boat at Feather River near Nicolaus/Verona. Fourteen samples were taken; 2 exceeded the CDFG criteria (Calanchini et al., 2004a).
Data Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Pesticide concentrations shall not exceed those allowable by applicable antidegradation policies (see State Water Resources Control Board Resolution No. 68-16 and 40 CFR section 131.12). 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.
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)
Evaluation Guideline: | CDFG Hazard Assessment Criteria 25 ng/L 1-hour average.
Guideline Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)
Spatial Representation: | On 2 and 3 February, for sampling at Feather River, a single grab sample was collected from the bank at each site.
Temporal Representation: | The Feather River was sampled on 22 February; these samples were collected with a D77 using the EWI method.
Environmental Conditions: |
QAPP Information: | Sample quality control was measured through collection of sequential duplicates (n=8), blanks (n=5) and matrix spikes (n=5) (Table 3). The relative percent difference (RPD) between environmental and duplicate sample concentrations of chlorpyrifos ranged from 0-104%. The RPDs between environmental and duplicate sample concentrations of diazinon ranged from 0-40%.
QAPP Information Reference(s):

DECISION ID | 7550
Pollutant: | Unknown Toxicity
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2006)
Revision Status | Revised
Sources: | Source Unknown
Expected TMDL Completion Date: | 2019
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant
Weight of Evidence: | This pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess pollutant. Eighty-five water samples tested with Ceriodaphnia dubia and seven water samples tested with Pimephales promelas exceeded the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Eighty-five of 212 water samples tested with Ceriodaphnia dubia (an invertebrate species) exceeded the narrative toxicity objective (survival and/or reproductive toxicity) and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Seven of 34 water samples tested with Pimephales promelas (Fathead Minnow, a vertebrate species) exceeded the narrative toxicity objective (survival and/or growth toxicity) and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 5. Zero of 23 samples tested with Selenastrum capricornutum (an algal species) exceeded the narrative toxicity objective and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 6. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are 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 removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.
SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: | N/A
USEPA Decision: |

Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 7550

LOE ID: | 22588
Pollutant: | Toxicity
LOE Subgroup: | Toxicity
Matrix: | Water
Fraction: | Total
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat
Aquatic Life Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat
Number of Samples: | 145
Number of Exceedances: | 54
Data and Information Type: | TOXICITY TESTING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Fifty four (54) of the 145 samples tested with Ceriodaphnia dubia exhibited reproductive toxicity and violated the narrative toxicity objective. The following is a summary of reproductive toxicity results by sampling location.Thermalito Diversion Pool downstream from the Kelly Ridge PowerhouseThis site was sampled once on 15 April 2003. The sample was determined to be toxic as reproduction (number of neonates per female) within this sample was significantly less than the control.Feather River at OrovilleSix of the 24 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): 21 May 2002 (33), 20 February 2003 (54), 19 March 2003 (60), 15 May 2003 (40), 15 December 2003 (48), 10 March 2004 (65)Feather River downstream from Feather River HatcheryThirteen of the 24 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): 21 May 2002 (31), 24 July 2002 (46), 14 November 2002 (36), 20 February 2003 (89), 19 March 2003 (70), 15 May 2003 (53), 17 June 2003 (58), 11 August 2003 (24), 17 September 2003 (66), 17 November 2003 (74), 15 December 2003 (7), 10 February 2004 (63), and 10 March 2004 (61). Feather River upstream from the Thermalito Afterbay OutletFive of the 24 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): 21 May 2002 (24), 27 October 2003 (66), 15 December 2003 (58), 10 February 2004 (55), and 10 March 2004 (65).Feather River downstream of the Thermalito Afterbay OutletNine of 24 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): 21 May 2002 (28), 19 March 2003 (91), 17 June 2003 (63), 8 July 2003 (17), 27 October 2003 (77), 17 November 2003 (78), 15 December 2003 (41), 10 February 2004 (48), and 10 March 2004 (61).Feather River downstream of the Sewage Commission Oroville Region (SCOR) OutletTen of 24 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): 24 April 2002 (78), 21 May 2002 (20), 25 June 2002 (53), 11 December 2002 (94), 20 February 2003 (60), 15 May 2003 (61), 17 September 2003 (61), 15 December 2003 (59), 10 February 2004 (51), and 10 March 2004 (39).Feather River downstream of the FERC Project 2100 project boundaryTen of 24 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): 21 May 2002 (47), 25 June 2002 (54), 24 July 2002 (88), 14 November 2002 (36), 20 February 2003 (54), 19 March 2003 (82), 17 September 2003 (35), 15 December 2003 (33), 10 February 2004 (55), and 10 March 2004 (62).
Data Reference: | Oroville Facilities Relicensing-FERC Project No. 2100. Contaminant accumulation in fish, sediments, and the aquatic food chain. Sacramento, CA: State of CA Department of Water Resources
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: | 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 the Feather River at the following locations: Thermalito Diversion Pool downstream from the Kelly Ridge Powerhouse, Oroville, downstream from Feather River Hatchery, upstream from the Thermalito Afterbay Outlet, downstream of the Thermalito Afterbay Outlet, downstream of the SCOR Outlet, and downstream of the FERC Project 2100 project boundary.
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected on a monthly basis during the period extending from 24 April 2002 through 10 March 2004 at all stations except Thermalito Diversion Pool downstream from the Kelly Ridge Powerhouse. The Thermalito Diversion Pool downstream from the Kelly Ridge Powerhouse was only sampled once on 15 April 2003.
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: | 22580
Pollutant: | Toxicity
LOE Subgroup: | Toxicity
Matrix: | Water
Fraction: | Total
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat
Aquatic Life Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat
Number of Samples: | 144
Number of Exceedances: | 15
Data and Information Type: | TOXICITY TESTING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Fifteen (15) of the 144 samples tested with Ceriodaphnia dubia were toxic (survival endpoint) and violated the narrative toxicity objective. The following is a summary of survival toxicity results by site.Thermalito Diversion Pool downstream from the Kelly Ridge PowerhouseThis site was sampled once on 15 April 2003. Survival within this sample was not significantly less than the control. The sample was not toxic. Feather River at OrovilleThree of the 23 samples were toxic and violated the narrative toxicity objective. Toxic samples (percent survival in parentheses) were collected on the following dates: 8 July 2003 (30), 33% of control; 11 August 2003 (0), 0% of control; and 10 February 2004 (60), 60% of control.Complete Ceriodaphnia mortality was observed on 11 August 2003. Based on this result, a Phase I Toxicity Identification Evaluation (TIE) was performed on the sample. Survival toxicity was removed in the centrifugation treatment, suggesting that particulate-associated contaminants were contributing to the observed toxicity (DWR, 2004). Feather River downstream from Feather River HatcheryFive of 24 samples were toxic and violated the narrative toxicity objective. Toxic samples (percent survival in parentheses) were collected on the following dates: 24 April 2002 (10), 10% of control; 15 May 2003 (10), 10 percent of control; 8 July 2003 (0), 0% of control; 27 October 2003 (60), 60 percent of control; and 15 December 2003 (20), 20 percent of control.There was 10% Ceriodaphnia survival for the sample collected on 24 April 2004. Based on this testing, a Phase I TIE was performed on the sample. The baseline sample was not toxic during the TIE, indicating that the toxicity was transient in nature and had degraded by the time the TIE was performed. In addition, anomalous mortalities were observed in several test replicates during the TIE, which also contributed to inconclusive information for determining the cause of the observed toxicity (DWR, 2004).Feather River upstream from the Thermalito Afterbay OutletOne of 24 samples was toxic and violated the narrative toxicity objective. The toxic sample (percent survival in parentheses) was collected on 11 August 2003 (0), 0% of control. Complete Ceriodaphnia mortality was observed on 11 August 2003. Based on this result, a Phase I Toxicity Identification Evaluation (TIE) was performed on the sample. Survival toxicity was removed in the centrifugation treatment, suggesting that particulate-associated contaminants contributed to the observed toxicity (DWR, 2004). Feather River downstream of the Thermalito Afterbay OutletOne of 24 samples was toxic and violated the narrative toxicity objective. The toxic sample (percent survival in parentheses) was collected on 11 August 2003 (0), 0% of control.Complete Ceriodaphnia mortality was observed on 11 August 2003. Based on this result, a Phase I Toxicity Identification Evaluation (TIE) was performed on the sample. Survival toxicity was removed in the C18 solid phase extraction (SPE) and Chelex treatments, suggesting that metals and non-polar organic contaminants were contributing to the observed toxicity. Analysis of metals results for samples collected concurrently with the toxicity sample indicate no elevated metals levels that could be implicated in the toxicity (DWR, 2004).Feather River downstream of the Sewage Commission Oroville Region (SCOR) OutletTwo of 24 samples were toxic and violated the narrative toxicity objective. Toxic samples (percent survival in parentheses) were collected on the following dates: 8 July 2003 (10), 11% of control; and 11 August 2003 (0), 0% of control.Complete Ceriodaphnia mortality was observed on 11 August 2003. Based on this result, a Phase I Toxicity Identification Evaluation (TIE) was performed on the sample.
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 (USEPA, 1994).
Guideline Reference: | Short-term Methods for Estimating the Chronic Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters to Freshwater and Marine Organisms, Fourth Edition. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water, Washington, DC EPA-821-R-02-013
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the Feather River at the following locations: Thermalito Diversion Pool downstream from the Kelly Ridge Powerhouse, Oroville, downstream from Feather River Hatchery, upstream from the Thermalito Afterbay Outlet, downstream of the Thermalito Afterbay Outlet, downstream of the SCOR Outlet, and downstream of the FERC Project 2100 project boundary.
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected on a monthly basis during the period extending from 24 April 2002 through 10 March 2004 at all stations except Thermalito Diversion Pool downstream from the Kelly Ridge Powerhouse. The Thermalito Diversion Pool downstream from the Kelly Ridge Powerhouse was only sampled once on 15 April 2003. The Feather River at Oroville site was not sampled on during the initial sampling event (24 April 2002), but was sampled during on all subsequent events.
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: | 22608
Pollutant: | Unknown Toxicity
LOE Subgroup: | Toxicity
Matrix: | Water
Fraction: | Total
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat
Aquatic Life Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat
Number of Samples: | 67
Number of Exceedances: | 12
Data and Information Type: | TOXICITY TESTING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seven-day reproduction toxicity tests were conducted with Ceriodaphnia dubia in association with Sacramento River Watershed Program annual monitoring activities. Twelve of the 67 samples exhibited significant reduction in reproduction compared to the laboratory control and violated the narrative toxicity objective. The following is a summary of toxicity test results by year.1998-1999One of the 12 samples exhibited a significant reduction in reproduction compared to the laboratory control. The toxic sample was collected on 14 December 1998 (33% of control). 1999-2000Three of the 12 samples exhibited a significant reduction in reproduction compared to the laboratory control. The toxic samples were collected on the following dates (percent of control in parentheses): 17 August 1999 (78), 21 September 1999 (79), and 19 October 1999 (74).2000-2001Two of the 9 samples exhibited a significant reduction in reproduction compared to the laboratory control. The toxic samples were collected on 21 July 2000 and 8 February 2001. The data summary does not provide the corresponding data for the control associated with each test, but rather provides the range of data for separate controls associated multiple tests. Therefore, percent of control was not calculated.2001-2002Two of the 5 samples a significant reduction in reproduction compared to the laboratory control. The toxic samples were collected on 26 September 2001 and 16 May 2002. Percent of control not included for same reason as 2000-2001 monitoring summary.2002-2003None of the 6 samples exhibited a significant reduction in reproduction compared to the laboratory control.2003-2004Two of the 5 samples exhibited a significant reduction in reproduction compared to the laboratory control. The toxic samples were collected on 21 January 2004 and 28 July 2004. Percent of control not included for same reason as 2000-2001 monitoring summary.2006-2007Two of the 18 samples exhibited significant reduction in reproduction compared to the laboratory control. The toxic samples were collected on the following dates (percentage of control response provided in parentheses): 20 September 2006 (80) and 9 February 2007 (84).
Data Reference: | Sacramento River watershed program (SRWP) water quality database. Davis, CA
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 with 7-day reproduction toxicity tests. Significant toxicity is defined as decreased reproduction that is statistically different from controls at the 95% confidence level.
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 the Feather River at Nicolaus.
Temporal Representation: | A summary of the monitoring intervals is provided below.1998-1999 Monitoring - Samples collected monthly from June 1998 through May 1999.1999-2000 Monitoring - Samples were collected on a monthly basis from June 1999 through May 2000.2000-2001 Monitoring - Samples were collected on 21 July 2000, 21 September 2000, 19 October 2000, 31 October 2000, 27 January 2001, 8 February 2001, 9 April 2001, 30 May 2001, and 22 June 2001.2001-2002 Monitoring - Sampling was scheduled to correspond to the following events/dates: late dry season, low flows (26 September 2001); seasonal "first flush" storm (4 November 2001); significant rainfall of >0.5 inches, organophosphate pesticide application period (22 February 2002); significant rainfall of >0.5 inches within 24 hours (8 March 2002); and rice field discharge period, late wet season (16 May 2002).2002-2003 Monitoring - Sampling was scheduled to correspond to the following events/dates: late dry season, low flows (3 October 2002); first significant storm event of season (12 November 2002); rain event, organophosphate pesticide dormant spray application (22 January 2003); late wet season, rain events (16 March 2003 and 13 April 2003); and rice field discharge season, dry weather event (10 June 2003).2003-2004 Monitoring - Sampling was scheduled to correspond to the following events/dates: mid-wet season (21 January 2004); post-organophosphate pesticide dormant spray application (4 February 2004); rice field discharge season, dry weather event (10 June 2004); follow-up sampling (16 June 2004); and dry season, low flows (28 July 2004).2006-2007 Monitoring - Sampling was generally conducted on a monthly basis from April 2006 through August 2007.Water Body Specific Information:
Environmental Conditions: |
QAPP Information: | Data quality: Good. Monitoring was conducted in accordance with the Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring prepared for the Sacramento River Watershed Program (SRWP 1999a, 1999b, 2000b, 2001b, 2002b, 2003b, 2006).
QAPP Information Reference(s):
LOE ID: | 22598
Pollutant: | Toxicity
LOE Subgroup: | Toxicity
Matrix: | Water
Fraction: | Total
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat
Aquatic Life Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat
Number of Samples: | 67
Number of Exceedances: | 7
Data and Information Type: | TOXICITY TESTING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seven-day survival toxicity tests were conducted with Ceriodaphnia dubia. Seven of the 67 samples exhibited a significant increase in mortality compared to the laboratory control and violated the narrative toxicity objective. The following is a summary of toxicity test results by year.1998-1999None of the 12 samples exhibited a significant increase in mortality compared to the laboratory control. 1999-2000One of the 12 samples exhibited a significant increase in mortality compared to the laboratory control. The toxic sample was collected on 15 November 1999 (50% survival), 50% of control.2000-2001One of the 9 samples exhibited a significant increase in mortality compared to the laboratory control. The toxic sample was collected on 9 April 2001 (0% survival).2001-2002One of the 5 samples exhibited a significant increase in mortality compared to the laboratory control. The toxic sample was collected on 8 March 2002 (10% survival). 2002-2003None of the 6 samples exhibited a significant increase in mortality compared to the laboratory control.2003-2004Two of the 5 samples exhibited a significant increase in mortality compared to the laboratory control. The toxic samples were collected on 10 June 2004 (10% survival) and 16 June 2004 (30% survival).The following is a summary of Toxicity Identification Evaluations (TIEs) performed on the June 2004 sample, as described in the 2003-2004 Annual Monitoring Report (SWRP 2005).The original samples were retested and treated by centrifugation, C-8 Solid Phase Extraction (SPE), and piperonyl butoxide (PBO). The untreated sample was still toxic at the initiation of the targeted TIE procedures. Centrifugation removed the toxicity of the sample. The combination of the SPE treatment and centrifugation reduced but did not completely remove toxicity, and the PBO treatment also reduced and delayed the onset of mortality in the sample. These results suggest that metabolically activated organic compound(s) (e.g., organophosphate pesticides) may have contributed to the observed toxicity. There were no organophosphate pesticides detected in the sample. This indicates that another non-organophosphate metabolically activated pesticide (e.g., some thiourea insecticides) may be responsible for at least some of the toxicity in these samples. To determine whether the toxicity could be recovered, acute Ceriodaphnia toxicity tests were conducted with concentrated elutions of the SPE columns. Toxicity was recovered from the SPE extractions. These results generally support the hypothesis that non-polar organic compounds (e.g., pesticides) were contributing to observed toxicity, although it is not conclusive proof. No further evaluations were performed with this sample.2006-2007Two of the 18 samples exhibited a significant increase in mortality compared to the laboratory control. The toxic samples were collected on the following dates (survival reported as percentage of control response in parentheses): 12 December 2006 (0) and 6 June 2007 (0). It should be noted that of the 12 water samples collected from across the watershed during this sampling event (December 2006), 11 caused complete mortality of the test organisms in the initial test.Phase I Toxicity Identification Evaluations (TIEs) were conducted using the 12 December 2006 sample. Although persistent during the TIEs, the toxicity was delayed and its magnitude was decreased. Toxicity was removed by the following TIE treatments: C-8 Solid Phase Extraction and piperonyl butoxide (PBO). This suggests that dissolved non-polar organic contaminants and metabolically-activated substances, or a substance with both properties, caused the toxicity (SRWP 2008). A Phase I TIE was also conducted for the 6 June 2007 sample; however, the toxicity was not persistent.
Data Reference:
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 with a 7-day survival toxicity tests. Significant toxicity is defined as mortality (=20%) that is statistically different from controls at the 95% confidence level.
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 the Feather River at Nicolaus.
Temporal Representation: | A summary of the monitoring intervals is provided below.1998-1999 Monitoring - Samples collected monthly from June 1998 through May 1999.1999-2000 Monitoring - Samples were collected on a monthly basis from June 1999 through May 2000 (12 sampling events).2000-2001 Monitoring - Samples were collected on 21 July 2000, 21 September 2000, 19 October 2000, 31 October 2000, 27 January 2001, 8 February 2001, 9 April 2001, 30 May 2001, and 22 June 2001.2001-2002 Monitoring - Sampling was scheduled to correspond to the following events/dates: late dry season, low flows (26 September 2001); seasonal -first flush- storm (4 November 2001); significant rainfall of >0.5 inches, organophosphate pesticide application period (22 February 2002); significant rainfall of >0.5 inches within 24 hours (8 March 2002); and rice field discharge period, late wet season (16 May 2002).2002-2003 Monitoring - Sampling was scheduled to correspond to the following events/dates: late dry season, low flows (3 October 2002); first significant storm event of season (12 November 2002); rain event, organophosphate pesticide dormant spray application (22 January 2003); late wet season, rain events (16 March 2003 and 13 April 2003); and rice field discharge season, dry weather event (10 June 2003).2003-2004 Monitoring - Sampling was scheduled to correspond to the following events/dates: mid-wet season (21 January 2004); post-organophosphate pesticide dormant spray application (4 February 2004); rice field discharge season, dry weather event (10 June 2004); follow-up sampling (16 June 2004); and dry season, low flows (28 July 2004).2006-2007 Monitoring - Sampling was generally conducted on a monthly basis from April 2006 through August 2007.Water Body Specific Information:
Environmental Conditions: |
QAPP Information: | Data quality: Good. Monitoring was conducted in accordance with the Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring prepared for the Sacramento River Watershed Program (SRWP 1999a, 1999b, 2000b, 2001b, 2002b, 2003b, 2006).
QAPP Information Reference(s):
LOE ID: | 22617
Pollutant: | Toxicity
LOE Subgroup: | Toxicity
Matrix: | Water
Fraction: | Total
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat
Aquatic Life Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat
Number of Samples: | 23
Number of Exceedances: | 0
Data and Information Type: | TOXICITY TESTING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Four-day growth tests were conducted with Selenastrum capricornutum in association with Sacramento River Watershed Program annual monitoring activities. None of the 23 samples exhibited a significant decrease in growth as compared to the laboratory control and violated the narrative toxicity objective. The following is a summary of monitoring results by year.1999-2000A single sample was collected on 21 September 1999. This sample did not exhibit a significant decrease in growth (cell numbers) as compared to the laboratory control.2003-2004None of the 4 samples exhibited a significant decrease in growth (cell numbers) as compared to the laboratory control.2006-2007None of the 18 samples exhibited a significant decrease in growth as compared to the laboratory control. The results reported for the sample collected on 25 July 2006 were those of a re-test (SRWP 2008).
Data Reference:
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 with a short-term chronic (4-day) growth test.
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 the Feather River at Nicolaus.
Temporal Representation: | A summary of the monitoring intervals is provided below.1999-2000 Monitoring - A single sample was collected on 21 September 1999.2003-2004 Monitoring - Sampling was scheduled to correspond to the following events/dates: mid-wet season (21 January 2004); post-organophosphate pesticide dormant spray application (4 February 2004); rice field discharge season, dry weather event (10 June 2004); follow-up sampling (16 June 2004); and dry season, low flows (28 July 2004).2006-2007 Monitoring - Sampling was generally conducted on a monthly basis from April 2006 through August 2007.
Environmental Conditions: |
QAPP Information: | Data quality: Good. Monitoring was conducted in accordance with the Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring prepared for the Sacramento River Watershed Program (SRWP 1999a, 1999b, 2000b, 2001b, 2002b, 2003b, 2006).
QAPP Information Reference(s):
LOE ID: | 4225
Pollutant: | Unknown Toxicity
LOE Subgroup: | Toxicity
Matrix: | Water
Fraction: | Not Recorded
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat
Number of Samples: | 0
Number of Exceedances: | 0
Data and Information Type: | Not Specified
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Unspecified--This LOE is a placeholder to support a 303(d) listing decision made prior to 2006.
Data Reference: | Placeholder reference pre-2006 303(d)
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: |
Objective/Criterion Reference:
Evaluation Guideline: |
Guideline Reference:
Spatial Representation: | Unspecified
Temporal Representation: | Unspecified
Environmental Conditions: | Unspecified
QAPP Information: | Unspecified
QAPP Information Reference(s):
LOE ID: | 26264
Pollutant: | Unknown Toxicity
LOE Subgroup: | Toxicity
Matrix: | Water
Fraction: | Total
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat
Number of Samples: | 34
Number of Exceedances: | 3
Data and Information Type: | TOXICITY TESTING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seven-day survival toxicity tests were conducted with Pimephales promelas. Three of the 34 samples exhibited a significant increase in mortality compared to the laboratory control and violated the narrative toxicity objective. The following is a summary of the test results by year. 1998-1999: One of the 12 samples exhibited a significant increase in mortality compared to the laboratory control. The toxic sample was collected on 16 February 1999 (37.5% survival), 38% of control. 2003-2004: One of the 4 samples exhibited a significant increase in mortality compared to the laboratory control. The toxic samples were collected on 4 February 2004 (70% survival). The sample collected on 10 June 2004 was not toxic in the initial test; however, the controls did not meet test acceptability requirements (SRWP 2005). The results for the initial test of the sample were reported. The results reported for the 21 January 2004 and 4 February 2004 are those from tests modified to control pathogen-related mortality (SRWP 2005). 2006-2007: One of the 18 samples exhibited a significant increase in mortality compared to the laboratory control. The toxic sample (survival reported as percentage of control response in parentheses) was collected on 20 September 2006 (71).
Data Reference: | Sacramento River Watershed Program Annual Reports for 1999-2000, 2000-2001, 2001-2002, 2002-2003, and 2003-2004; and BDAT data 1998-2003
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, 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: | Statistically significant difference from control with 7-day survival toxicity tests. Significant toxicity is defined as a statistically significant (p<0.5) increase in mortality (>=20%) compared to the laboratory control.
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 the Feather River at Nicolaus.
Temporal Representation: | A summary of the monitoring intervals is provided below. 1998-1999 Monitoring Samples collected monthly from June 1998 through May 1999. 2003-2004 Monitoring Sampling was scheduled to correspond to the following events/dates: mid-wet season (21 January 2004); post-organophosphate pesticide dormant spray application (4 February 2004); rice field discharge season, dry weather event (10 June 2004); follow-up sampling (16 June 2004); and dry season, low flows (28 July 2004). 2006-2007 Monitoring Sampling was generally conducted on a monthly basis from April 2006 through August 2007.
Environmental Conditions: |
QAPP Information: | Monitoring was conducted in accordance with the Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring prepared for the Sacramento River Watershed Program (SRWP 1999a, 1999b, 2003, 2006). The controls did not meet test acceptability requirements for the sample collected on 10 June 2004. Results presented in the report (SRWP 2005) for this sample were those of the initial test.
QAPP Information Reference(s):
LOE ID: | 26265
Pollutant: | Unknown Toxicity
LOE Subgroup: | Toxicity
Matrix: | Water
Fraction: | Total
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat
Number of Samples: | 34
Number of Exceedances: | 4
Data and Information Type: | TOXICITY TESTING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seven-day growth toxicity tests were conducted with Pimephales promelas. Four of the 34 samples exhibited significant reduction in growth compared to the laboratory control and violated the narrative toxicity objective. Growth endpoints for P. promelas were not statistically compared to control results if survival endpoints were significantly less than the controls. The following is a summary of the test results by year. 1998-1999: Two of the 12 samples exhibited a significant reduction in growth compared to the laboratory control. The toxic samples were collected on 18 August 1998 (59% of control) and 18 May 1999 (84% of control). 2003-2004: One of the 4 samples was reported as having exhibited a significant reduction in growth compared to the laboratory control. The toxic sample was collected on 28 July 2004. The data summary does not provide the corresponding data for the control associated with each test, but rather provides the range of data for separate controls associated multiple tests. Therefore, percent of control was not included in this assessment. The sample collected on 10 June 2004 was not toxic in the initial test; however, the controls did not meet test acceptability requirements (SRWP 2005). The results for the initial test of the sample were reported. The results reported for the 21 January 2004 and 4 February 2004 are those from tests modified to control pathogen-related mortality (SRWP 2005). 2006-2007: One of the 18 samples exhibited a significant reduction in growth compared to the laboratory control. The toxic sample was collected on 14 March 2007 (85% of control).
Data Reference: | Sacramento River Watershed Program Annual Reports for 1999-2000, 2000-2001, 2001-2002, 2002-2003, and 2003-2004; and BDAT data 1998-2003
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, 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: | Statistically significant difference from control with 7-day growth toxicity tests. Significant toxicity is defined as a statistically significant (p<0.5) reduction in growth compared to the laboratory control.
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 the Feather River at Nicolaus.
Temporal Representation: | A summary of the monitoring intervals is provided below. 1998-1999 Monitoring Samples collected monthly from June 1998 through May 1999. 2003-2004 Monitoring Sampling was scheduled to correspond to the following events/dates: mid-wet season (21 January 2004); post-organophosphate pesticide dormant spray application (4 February 2004); rice field discharge season, dry weather event (10 June 2004); follow-up sampling (16 June 2004); and dry season, low flows (28 July 2004). 2006-2007 Monitoring Sampling was generally conducted on a monthly basis from April 2006 through August 2007.
Environmental Conditions: |
QAPP Information: | Monitoring was conducted in accordance with the Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring prepared for the Sacramento River Watershed Program (SRWP 1999a, 1999b, 2003, 2006). The controls did not meet test acceptability requirements for the sample collected on 10 June 2004; however, the results of the initial test of the sample were reported (SRWP 2005).
QAPP Information Reference(s):

DECISION ID | 14540
Pollutant: | Cadmium
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 468 samples exceeded the USEPA (CTR) cadimum-based numeric criteria for freshwater aquatic life protection 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 14540

LOE ID: | 22216
Pollutant: | Cadmium
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water
Matrix: | Water
Fraction: | Dissolved
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat
Aquatic Life Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat
Number of Samples: | 468
Number of Exceedances: | 0
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | 468 samples were taken from Lower Feather River between 2002 and 2004. None of the 468 samples exceed guidelines for dissolved cadmium.
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(0.7852*LN(hardness)-2.715))*(1.101672-(LN(hardness)*0.041838))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: Feather River at Archer Ave, Oroville, Robinson Riffle, Shanghai Bend, Singh above Riviera Rd.; Downstream from Afterbay Outlet, Hatchery, Hwy 162, Project Boundary, and SCOR Outlet; Hatchery Settling Pond; Near Mile Long Pond, Near Verona; Upstream from Afterbay Outlet, Hatchery, and Yuba River.
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 | 14541
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. 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 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. Four of 470 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 14541

LOE ID: | 21818
Pollutant: | Copper
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water
Matrix: | Water
Fraction: | Dissolved
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat
Aquatic Life Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat
Number of Samples: | 470
Number of Exceedances: | 4
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | 470 samples were taken from the Lower Feather river between March 2002 and April 2004. Four of the 470 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: Feather River at Archer Ave, Oroville, Robinson Riffle, Shanghai Bend, Singh above Riviera Rd.; Downstream from Afterbay Outlet, Hatchery, Hwy 162, Project Boundary, and SCOR Outlet; Hatchery Settling Pond; Near Mile Long Pond, Near Verona; Upstream from Afterbay Outlet, Hatchery, and Yuba River.
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected between March 2002 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):

DECISION ID | 14617
Pollutant: | DDT
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 sections 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. One composite fish tissue sample exceeds the Evaluation Guideline for total DDT in fish tissue and, therefore, only one fish tissue sample exceeds the narrative toxicity 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 4 fish tissue samples exceed the Evaluation Guideline for total DDT in fish tissue (OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goals of 21 ug/kg), and this single exceedacne of the narrative toxicity objective 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 14617

LOE ID: | 26140
Pollutant: | DDT
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue
Matrix: | Tissue
Fraction: | Fish whole body
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms
Number of Samples: | 4
Number of Exceedances: | 1
Data and Information Type: | Fish tissue analysis
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Sacramento sucker fish samples were taken from Feather River at Nicolaus on 25 July 2005, 26 September, 2005 and 11 October 2005 and were analyzed for total DDT. The forms of DDT analyzed included: DDT (o,p), DDT (p,p), DDD (o,p), DDD (p,p), DDE (o,p), DDE (p,p), DDMU (p,p). Two replicate lab samples of one composite exceeded the OEHHA screening value of 21 ug/kg for total DDT in fish tissue with an average value of 41.24 ug/kg for total DDT.
Data Reference: | Sacramento River Watershed Program Annual Reports for 1999-2000, 2000-2001, 2001-2002, 2002-2003, and 2003-2004; and BDAT data 1998-2003
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.
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: | OEHHA 2008 Fish Contaminant Goals (FCG) are based on cancer risk assessments using an 8-Ounce/Week (prior to cooking) consumption rate of 32 g/day. The FCG used as a screening value for total DDT (with a cancer slope factor of 0.34 mg/kg/day) should be less than 21 ug/kg.
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 from Feather River Hatchery, Feather River at Nicolaus and Feather River at Gridley.
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected on 25 July 2005 (Sacramento Sucker), 26 September 2005 (Sacramento Sucker) and 11 October 2005 (Chinook).
Environmental Conditions: |
QAPP Information: | Data Quality: Good. Monitoring was conducted in accordance with Sacramento River Watershed Program QAPP requirements.
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plans prepared for Sacramento River Watershed Program

DECISION ID | 14543
Pollutant: | Fecal Coliform
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. 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 376 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.
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 14543

LOE ID: | 21809
Pollutant: | Fecal Coliform
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water
Matrix: | Water
Fraction: | None
Beneficial Use: | Water Contact Recreation
Number of Samples: | 376
Number of Exceedances: | 0
Data and Information Type: | PATHOGEN MONITORING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | The Department of Water Resources collected 414 samples from March 2002 to April 2004. The geometric mean per month per site was calculated from the samples and 0 out of the 376 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
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: | 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 Feather River at 15 locations:1 Oroville, 2) Upstream of Hatchery, 3) Hatchery Settling Pond, 4) Downstream of Hatchery, 5) Downstream of Highway 162, 6) Robinson Riffle, 7) Downstream of Afterbay outlet, 8) Downstream of SCOR outlet, 9) Near Mile Long Pond, 10) Downstream of Project Boundary, 11) Singh Avenue before Riviera Road, 12) Archer Avenue, 13) Upstream of Yuba River, 14) Shanghai Bend, 15) Near Verona.
Temporal Representation: | Sampling occurred from March 2002 to 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):

DECISION ID | 14542
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. 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 468 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 14542

LOE ID: | 22218
Pollutant: | Lead
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water
Matrix: | Water
Fraction: | Dissolved
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat
Aquatic Life Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat
Number of Samples: | 468
Number of Exceedances: | 1
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | 468 samples were taken from the Lower Feather River between 2002 and 2004. One of the 468 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
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: Feather River at Archer Ave, Oroville, Robinson Riffle, Shanghai Bend, Singh above Riviera Rd.; Downstream from Afterbay Outlet, Hatchery, Hwy 162, Project Boundary, and SCOR Outlet; Hatchery Settling Pond; Near Mile Long Pond, Near Verona; Upstream from Afterbay Outlet, Hatchery, and Yuba River.
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected from March 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 | 14544
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 468 samples exceeded the USEPA (CTR) Nickel-based numeric criteria for freshwater aquatic life protection 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 14544

LOE ID: | 22219
Pollutant: | Nickel
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water
Matrix: | Water
Fraction: | Dissolved
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat
Aquatic Life Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat
Number of Samples: | 468
Number of Exceedances: | 0
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | 468 samples were taken from Lower Feather River between 2002 and 2004. None of the 468 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: Feather River at Archer Ave, Oroville, Robinson Riffle, Shanghai Bend, Singh above Riviera Rd.; Downstream from Afterbay Outlet, Hatchery, Hwy 162, Project Boundary, and SCOR Outlet; Hatchery Settling Pond; Near Mile Long Pond, Near Verona; Upstream from Afterbay Outlet, Hatchery, and Yuba River.
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 | 14539
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. One lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Six 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. Six of 476 samples fell below the criteria outlined 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 14539

LOE ID: | 22569
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: | 476
Number of Exceedances: | 6
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | 476 samples were taken from the lower Feather River between March 2002 and April 2004. 6 samples exceed the minimum dissolved oxygen concentration (8 mg/L), 3 samples exceed 7 mg/L, and 0 sample exceeds 5mg/L.
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: | 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/L8.0 mg/L from 1 September to 31 May, for Feather River from Fish Barrier Dam at Oroville to Honcut Creek
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 Lower Feather River from 16 stations.
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected between March 2002 and April 2004 at monthly interval.
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):

DECISION ID | 14620
Pollutant: | Salinity
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. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero samples exceed the water quality objectives for salinity (either total dissolved solids, TDS, or electrical conductivity, EC). 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 488 salinity measurements (either TDS or EC) exceeded the water quality objective for salinity, 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 14620

LOE ID: | 26141
Pollutant: | Electrical Conductivity
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water
Matrix: | Water
Fraction: | None
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply
Number of Samples: | 1
Number of Exceedances: | 0
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Assessment was based on a total of 480 average electrical conductivity values (468 field measurements and 475 laboratory measurements) for 17 sites along the lower Feather River, made between 26 March 2002 and 6 April 2004. The calculated 90th percentile value (105 micromhos/cm) for the lower Feather River based on the data does not exceed the Water Quality Objective for electrical conductivity of 150 micromhos/cm (DWR, 2004).
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: | The water quality objective used was the Basin Plan objective for salinity, expressed as electrical conductivity (at 25C) for Special Cases in the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins Other Than the Delta, as shown in Table III-3. For the Feather River from the Fish Barrier Dam at Oroville to Sacramento River, electrical conductivity Shall not exceed 150 micromhos/cm (90th percentile) in well-mixed waters of the Feather River.
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: | Electrical conductivity was measured directly in the field and in laboratory samples collected at 17 sites along the lower Feather River, including: at Archer Avenue, at Oroville, at Robinson Riffle, at Shanghai Bend, at Singh above Riviera Road, downstream of Diversion Dam, downstream from Afterbay Outlet, downstream from Hatchery, downstream from Highway 162, downstream from Project Boundary, downstream from SCOR Outlet, at Hatchery settling pond, near Mile Long Pond, near Verona, upstream from Afterbay Outlet, upstream from Hatchery, and upstream from Yuba River.
Temporal Representation: | Electrical conductivity was measured in the field and in the laboratory approximately monthly between March 26 2002 and April 6 2004.
Environmental Conditions: |
QAPP Information: | Data Quality: Good. Monitoring was conducted in accordance with the Quality Assurance Plan for Oroville Facilities Relicensing FERC Project No. 2100, Study Plan W1.
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Oroville Facilities Relicensing FERC Project No. 2100. Study Plan W1, Project Effects on Water Quality Designated Beneficial Uses for Surface Waters
LOE ID: | 26143
Pollutant: | Total Dissolved Solids
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water
Matrix: | Water
Fraction: | None
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply
Number of Samples: | 18
Number of Exceedances: | 0
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Eighteen averaged measurements of Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) were taken from lower Feather River near Nicolaus between 20 April 2006 and 8 August 2007. Zero of the 18 measurements exceed the California Secondary MCL for TDS in surface water
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: | The water quality objective used was the California Secondary MCL of 500 mg/L. The Basin Plan includes chemical constituent water quality objectives that include (by reference) secondary maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) protective of MUN (CVRWQCB, 2007). The secondary MCLs for TDS provide a range of values including a recommended level (500 mg/L), upper level (1000 mg/L) and a short-term level (1500 mg/L). The recommended concentration was used as it is intended to be protective of all drinking water 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
| 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: | Total dissolved solids (TDS) was measured in the lower Feather River near Nicolaus.
Temporal Representation: | Total dissolved solids (TDS) was measured approximately monthly between 26 March 2002 and 6 April 2004.
Environmental Conditions: |
QAPP Information: | Data Quality: Good. Monitoring was conducted in accordance with the Quality Assurance Plan for Oroville Facilities Relicensing FERC Project No. 2100, Study Plan W1.
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Oroville Facilities Relicensing FERC Project No. 2100. Study Plan W1, Project Effects on Water Quality Designated Beneficial Uses for Surface Waters
LOE ID: | 26142
Pollutant: | Total Dissolved Solids
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water
Matrix: | Water
Fraction: | None
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply
Number of Samples: | 469
Number of Exceedances: | 0
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Four hundred sixty nine measurements of Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) were taken from lower Feather River sampling sites between 26 March 2002 and 6 April 2004. Zero of the 469 measurements exceed the California Secondary MCL for TDS in surface water (DWR, 2005).
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: | The water quality objective used was the California Secondary MCL of 500 mg/L. The Basin Plan includes chemical constituent water quality objectives that include (by reference) secondary maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) protective of MUN (CVRWQCB, 2007). The secondary MCLs for TDS provide a range of values including a recommended level (500 mg/L), upper level (1000 mg/L) and a short-term level (1500 mg/L). The recommended concentration was used as it is intended to be protective of all drinking water 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
| 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: | Total dissolved solids (TDS) was measured in the field at 17 sites along the lower Feather River, including: at Archer Avenue, at Oroville, at Robinson Riffle, at Shanghai Bend, at Singh above Riviera Road, downstream of Diversion Dam, downstream from Afterbay Outlet, downstream from Hatchery, downstream from Highway 162, downstream from Project Boundary, downstream from SCOR Outlet, at Hatchery settling pond, near Mile Long Pond, near Verona, upstream from Afterbay Outlet, upstream from Hatchery, and upstream from Yuba River.
Temporal Representation: | Total dissolved solids (TDS) was measured in the field approximately monthly between March 26 2002 and April 6 2004.
Environmental Conditions: |
QAPP Information: | Data Quality: Good. Monitoring was conducted in accordance with the Quality Assurance Plan for Oroville Facilities Relicensing FERC Project No. 2100, Study Plan W1.
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Oroville Facilities Relicensing FERC Project No. 2100. Study Plan W1, Project Effects on Water Quality Designated Beneficial Uses for Surface Waters

DECISION ID | 12956
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. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Six 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 fish and crayfish tissue 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. In addition, 2 of 4 fish tissue 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 12956

LOE ID: | 21819
Pollutant: | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue
Matrix: | Tissue
Fraction: | Fish whole body
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 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 from three locations in the Feather River:Upstream of the Afterbay Outlet: Total PCBs in 1 of 1 composite sample of largemouth bass exceeded 3.6 ng/g. The sample concentration was 15.6 ng/g total PCBs, wet weight. Downstream of the Afterbay Outlet: Total PCBs in 2 of 2 composite sample of largemouth bass exceeded 3.6 ng/g. Sample concentrations were 11.2 and 15.0 ng/g, total PCBs, wet weight.Downstream of Highway 70 Bridge: Total PCBs in 1 of 1 composite sample of crayfish exceeded 3.6 ng/g. The sample concentration was 56.0 ng/g total PCBs, wet weight. The fish sampled had fork lengths greater than 340 mm. Composite samples were comprised of fillet samples from up to 5 individual fish of the same species and were were composed of fish with no greater than 25% difference in fork length between the largest and smallest fish. Whole bodies of 14 crayfish were composited. Large crayfish were targeted for sampling.
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
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 at three separate locations on the Feather River downstream of Lake Oroville.
Temporal Representation: | Fish samples were collected on 04/05/2002, 08/22/2002 and 01/29/03.
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.. 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: | 21820
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: | 2
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 in the Feather River near Gridley.Total PBCs in 2 of 4 composite samples exceeded 3.6 ng/g. Sample concentrations were 1.5 and 2.7 ng/g total PBCs in largemouth bass, 26.2 ng/g in hardhead, and 31.0 ng/g in pikeminnow. The fish sampled had fork lengths greater than 225 mm. Composite samples were comprised of fillet samples from up to 7 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
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 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:
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected at one site in the lower Feather River. In Phase 1 of fish sampling for the FERC relicensing project,
Temporal Representation: | Fish samples were collected during on 09/30/03 and 04/01/04.
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.. 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 | 7524
Pollutant: | Mercury
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2006)
Revision Status | Original
Sources: | Resource Extraction
Expected TMDL Completion Date: | 2012
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant
Weight of Evidence: | This pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under sections 4.1 and 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 4.1, a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess pollutant. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are 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 removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.
SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
USEPA Decision: |

Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 7524

LOE ID: | 4224
Pollutant: | Mercury
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue
Matrix: | Tissue
Fraction: | Not Recorded
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms
Number of Samples: | 0
Number of Exceedances: | 0
Data and Information Type: | Not Specified
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Unspecified--This LOE is a placeholder to support a 303(d) listing decision made prior to 2006.
Data Reference: | Placeholder reference pre-2006 303(d)
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Unspecified
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Placeholder reference pre-2006 303(d)
Evaluation Guideline: | Unspecified
Guideline Reference: | Placeholder reference pre-2006 303(d)
Spatial Representation: | Unspecified
Temporal Representation: | Unspecified
Environmental Conditions: | Unspecified
QAPP Information: | Unspecified
QAPP Information Reference(s):

DECISION ID | 7523
Pollutant: | Group A Pesticides
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)(2006)
Revision Status | Original
Sources: | Agriculture
Expected TMDL Completion Date: | 2011
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant
Weight of Evidence: | 303(d) listing decisions made prior to 2006 were not held in an assessment database. The Regional Boards will update this decision when new data and information become available and are assessed.
RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: | No new data were assessed for 2008. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available and are assessed.
SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: | N/A
USEPA Decision: |

Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 7523

LOE ID: | 4223
Pollutant: | Group A Pesticides
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue
Matrix: | Tissue
Fraction: | Not Recorded
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms
Number of Samples: | 0
Number of Exceedances: | 0
Data and Information Type: | Not Specified
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Unspecified--This LOE is a placeholder to support a 303(d) listing decision made prior to 2006.
Data Reference: | Placeholder reference pre-2006 303(d)
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Unspecified
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Placeholder reference pre-2006 303(d)
Evaluation Guideline: | Unspecified
Guideline Reference: | Placeholder reference pre-2006 303(d)
Spatial Representation: | Unspecified
Temporal Representation: | Unspecified
Environmental Conditions: | Unspecified
QAPP Information: | Unspecified
QAPP Information Reference(s):