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

# Supporting Information

## Regional Board 5 - Central Valley Region

Water Body Name: | Mile Long Pond (Butte County)
Water Body ID: | CAL5154000020080810182808
Water Body Type: | Lake & Reservoir

DECISION ID | 13747
Pollutant: | Copper
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision
Revision Status | Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant
Weight of Evidence: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 24 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 13747

LOE ID: | 23103
Pollutant: | Copper
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water
Matrix: | Water
Fraction: | Dissolved
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat
Aquatic Life Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat
Number of Samples: | 24
Number of Exceedances: | 0
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | 24 samples were taken from Mile Long Pond between March 2002 and April 2004. Zero of the 24 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 Mile Long Pond.
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected between May 2002 and April 2004.
Environmental Conditions: |
QAPP Information: | Data quality: Good. Quality Control for all of the elements described in section 6.1.4 of the Policy was conducted in accordance with the Laboratory QAPP developed by the State of California Resources Agency Department of Water Resources (DWR, 2005). Quality Assurance Project Plan for Oroville Facilities Relicensing FERC Project No. 2100 SP-W1. Department of Water Resources (DWR). Oroville Facilities Relicensing FERC Project No. 2100. January 2005.
QAPP Information Reference(s):

DECISION ID | 12683
Pollutant: | Mercury
Final Listing Decision: | List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision
Revision Status | Revised
Sources: | Resource Extraction
Expected TMDL Completion Date: | 2021
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant
Weight of Evidence: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Three of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Three of 12 fish samples exceed the USEPA fish tissue criterion for human health and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. In addition, zero out of 13 water samples exceed the USEPA (CTR) mercury-based numeric criterion for human health. This number of exceedances does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
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 12683

LOE ID: | 22101
Pollutant: | Mercury
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue
Matrix: | Tissue
Fraction: | Total
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms
Number of Samples: | 12
Number of Exceedances: | 3
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Fish were sampled for tissue analysis at one location from Mile Long Pond. A total of 3 out of 12 samples exceeded the USEPA fish tissue criterion for human health. The average wet weight mercury concentration in fish tissue was 0.17 ppm for all 12 samples collected. The number of fish collected per sample, the measured mercury concentrations in fish tissue, and the number of exceedances are, by species: Brown Bullhead- 1 sample, 0.04 ppm, no exceedances; Carp- 1 sample, 0.32 ppm, 1 exceedance; Largemouth Bass- 5 samples, 0.18-0.31 ppm (average 0.24 ppm), 2 exceedances; Sunfish Hybrid- 5 samples, 0.06-0.17 ppm (average 0.09 ppm), no exceedances. All 12 samples were collected from fish with total lengths greater than 150 mm, which represent fish most commonly caught and consumed by sport fishers and their families.
Data Reference: | Reports, data files, and QAPP documentation for characterization of surface waters of Lake Oroville and the Feather River (Butte County), associated with the Oroville Facilities Hydroelectric Project (FERC #2100).
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. The objective applies regardless of whether the toxicity is caused by a single substance or the interactive effect of multiple substances.
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board - Central Valley Region
Evaluation Guideline: | The USEPA Fish Tissue Residue Criterion for methylmercury in fish is 0.3 mg/kg (0.3 ppm) for the protection of human health. This is the concentration in fish tissue that should not be exceeded based on a total fish and shellfish consumption-weighted rate of 0.0175 kg fish/day. (USEPA, 2001)
Guideline Reference: | Water Quality Criterion for the Protection of Human Health: Methylmercury. Final. United States Environmental Protection Agency Office of Science and Technology Office of Water. EPA-823-R-01-001. January 2001
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected at one location from Mile Long Pond located within the Oroville Wildlife Area. The latitude-longitude coordinates for the pond are N 39° 25' 43", W 121° 38' 01" (NAD 83).
Temporal Representation: | Fish samples were collected during two sampling events on 6/10/2003 and 8/1/2003.
Environmental Conditions: | Significant gold mining activity occurred during the Gold Rush era at areas nearby and upstream of Mile Long Pond (USGS, 2005).
QAPP Information: | Data quality: Good.. Quality control for sample collection, preparation, handling, and analyses were conducted in accordance with the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan (Puckett, 2002) with the following exception: instead of wrapping fish in Teflon sheets before being frozen and transported to the laboratory, the fish were wrapped in aluminum foil (dull side to skin). This wrapping method should not have affected mercury concentrations. Quality control procedures for selection of target fish species and compositing of samples followed the General Protocol for Sport Fish Sampling and Analysis developed by OEHHA (Gassel and Brodberg, 2005).
QAPP Information Reference(s):
LOE ID: | 22102
Pollutant: | Mercury
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water
Matrix: | Water
Fraction: | Total
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms
Number of Samples: | 13
Number of Exceedances: | 0
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | A total of 28 water samples were collected at one location from Mile Long Pond representing thirteen 30-day average samples. None of the thirteen 30-day average samples exceeded the USEPA (CTR) mercury-based numeric criterion for human health. The total recoverable mercury concentrations in water ranged from 0.24 ng/l to 0.94 ng/l with an average of 0.58 ng/l for the thirteen 30-day average samples.
Data Reference: | Reports, data files, and QAPP documentation for characterization of surface waters of Lake Oroville and the Feather River (Butte County), associated with the Oroville Facilities Hydroelectric Project (FERC #2100).
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The USEPA (CTR) numeric criterion for the protection of human health for the consumption of both water and fish that live in the water is 50 ng/l (30-day average) for total recoverable mercury (40 CFR 131.38).
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency
| Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board - Central Valley Region
Evaluation Guideline: |
Guideline Reference:
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected at one location from Mile Long Pond located within the Oroville Wildlife Area. The latitude-longitude coordinates for the pond are N 39° 25' 43", W 121° 38' 01" (NAD 83).
Temporal Representation: | Water samples were collected during 24 sampling events from 5/30/2002 to 4/7/2004.
Environmental Conditions: | Significant gold mining activity occurred during the Gold Rush era at areas nearby and upstream of Mile Long Pond (USGS, 2005).
QAPP Information: | Data Quality: Excellent.. Quality Control for all of the elements described in section 6.1.4 of the Policy was conducted in accordance with the QAPP developed by the State of California Resources Agency, Department of Water Resources (DWR, 2005).
QAPP Information Reference(s):

DECISION ID | 12686
Pollutant: | Unknown Toxicity
Final Listing Decision: | List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision
Revision Status | Revised
Sources: | Source Unknown
Expected TMDL Completion Date: | 2021
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant
Weight of Evidence: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Four of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Four of 16 samples tested with Ceriodaphnia exceeded the narrative toxicity objective (reproductive toxicity) 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 12686

LOE ID: | 22959
Pollutant: | Toxicity
LOE Subgroup: | Toxicity
Matrix: | Water
Fraction: | Total
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat
Aquatic Life Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat
Number of Samples: | 16
Number of Exceedances: | 4
Data and Information Type: | TOXICITY TESTING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Four of the 16 samples tested with Ceriodaphnia dubia 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): 3 June 2003 (39), 24 June 2003 (51), 10 February 2004 (79), and 10 March 2004 (47).
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 chronic-style (reproduction endpoint) toxicity tests (USEPA, 1994; DWR, 2004).
Guideline Reference:
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from Oroville Wildlife Area Mile Long Pond.
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected on the following dates: 30 May 2002, 24 July 2002, 26 March 2003, 24 April 2003, 3 June 2003, 24 June 2003, 24 July 2003, 21 August 2003, 22 September 2003, 20 October 2003, 18 November 2003, 16 December 2003, 13 January 2004, 10 February 2004, 10 March 2004, and 7 April 2004.
Environmental Conditions: |
QAPP Information: | Data quality: Good. Quality Control for all of the elements described in section 6.1.4 of the Policy was conducted in accordance with the Laboratory QAPP developed by the State of California Resources Agency Department of Water Resources (DWR, 2005). Quality Assurance Project Plan for Oroville Facilities Relicensing FERC Project No. 2100 SP-W1. Department of Water Resources (DWR). Oroville Facilities Relicensing FERC Project No. 2100. January 2005.
QAPP Information Reference(s):
LOE ID: | 22958
Pollutant: | Toxicity
LOE Subgroup: | Toxicity
Matrix: | Water
Fraction: | Total
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat
Aquatic Life Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat
Number of Samples: | 16
Number of Exceedances: | 0
Data and Information Type: | TOXICITY TESTING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | None of the 16 samples tested with Ceriodaphnia dubia were toxic (survival endpoint) and violated the narrative toxicity objective.
Data Reference: | Oroville Facilities Relicensing-FERC Project No. 2100. Contaminant accumulation in fish, sediments, and the aquatic food chain. Sacramento, CA: State of CA Department of Water Resources
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. This objective applies regardless of whether the toxicity is caused by a single substance or the interactive effect of multiple substances (CVRWQCB, 2007).
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board - Central Valley Region
Evaluation Guideline: | Statistically significant difference from control using a t-test with 7-day survival toxicity tests.
Guideline Reference:
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from Oroville Wildlife Area Mile Long Pond.
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected on the following dates: 30 May 2002, 24 July 2002, 26 March 2003, 24 April 2003, 3 June 2003, 24 June 2003, 24 July 2003, 21 August 2003, 22 September 2003, 20 October 2003, 18 November 2003, 16 December 2003, 13 January 2004, 10 February 2004, 10 March 2004, and 7 April 2004.
Environmental Conditions: |
QAPP Information: | Data quality: Good. Quality Control for all of the elements described in section 6.1.4 of the Policy was conducted in accordance with the Laboratory QAPP developed by the State of California Resources Agency Department of Water Resources (DWR, 2005). Quality Assurance Project Plan for Oroville Facilities Relicensing FERC Project No. 2100 SP-W1. Department of Water Resources (DWR). Oroville Facilities Relicensing FERC Project No. 2100. January 2005.
QAPP Information Reference(s):