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

# Supporting Information

## Regional Board 5 - Central Valley Region

Water Body Name: | Sucker Run (Butte County)
Water Body ID: | CAR5182202320080731220413
Water Body Type: | River & Stream

DECISION ID | 11681
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 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 27 samples exceeded the Basin Plan criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.
SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
USEPA Decision: |

Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 11681

LOE ID: | 23186
Pollutant: | Lead
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water
Matrix: | Water
Fraction: | Dissolved
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat
Aquatic Life Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat
Number of Samples: | 27
Number of Exceedances: | 0
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | 27 samples were taken from Sucker Run Creek between 2002 and 2004. 0 of the 27 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 Sucker Run Creek near Forbestown.
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 | 11687
Pollutant: | Mercury
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. One of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. One of 17 samples exceed the USEPA (CTR) mercury-based numeric criterion for human health 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 11687

LOE ID: | 22071
Pollutant: | Mercury
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water
Matrix: | Water
Fraction: | Total
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms
Number of Samples: | 17
Number of Exceedances: | 1
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 Sucker Run Creek representing seventeen 30-day average samples. One of the seventeen 30-day average samples exceeded the USEPA (CTR) mercury-based numeric criterion for human health. The total recoverable mercury concentrations in water ranged from 0.40 ng/l to 92.1 ng/l with an average of 6.2 ng/l for the seventeen 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 Sucker Run Creek just upstream of Forest Service Road 20N97, approximately 0.3 miles upstream of Lake Oroville.
Temporal Representation: | Water samples were collected during 28 sampling events from 3/28/2002 to 4/13/2004.
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 QAPP developed by the State of California Resources Agency, Department of Water Resources (DWR, 2005).
QAPP Information Reference(s):

DECISION ID | 11689
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. Seven 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. Seven of 10 samples tested with Ceriodaphnia dubia exceeded the water quality objective (survival and/or 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 11689

LOE ID: | 23304
Pollutant: | Toxicity
LOE Subgroup: | Toxicity
Matrix: | Water
Fraction: | Total
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat
Aquatic Life Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat
Number of Samples: | 10
Number of Exceedances: | 1
Data and Information Type: | TOXICITY TESTING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | One of the 10 samples tested with Ceriodaphnia dubia was toxic (survival endpoint) and violated the narrative toxicity objective. The toxic sample was collected on 15 September 2003. This sample had 10 percent survival, which represented 10 percent of control.
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:
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from Sucker Run near Forbestown.
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected on the following dates: 16 May 2002, 15 July 2002, 24 September 2002, 12 November 2002, 18 February 2003, 15 April 2003, 14 July 2003, 15 September 2003, 12 November 2003, and 18 February 2004. Sampling events were conducted during the high temperature months of July and September, following the first flush in the fall, following winter dormant spraying in February, and again during the high runoff period in April or May.
Environmental Conditions: |
QAPP Information: | Data quality: Good. 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: | 23305
Pollutant: | Toxicity
LOE Subgroup: | Toxicity
Matrix: | Water
Fraction: | Total
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat
Aquatic Life Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat
Number of Samples: | 10
Number of Exceedances: | 6
Data and Information Type: | TOXICITY TESTING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Six of the 10 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): 16 May 2002 (70), 15 July 2002 (47), 15 April 2003 (79), 14 July 2003 (81), 12 November 2003 (67), and 18 February 2004 (76).
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).
Guideline Reference:
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from Sucker Run near Forbestown.
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected on the following dates: 16 May 2002, 15 July 2002, 24 September 2002, 12 November 2002, 18 February 2003, 15 April 2003, 14 July 2003, 15 September 2003, 12 November 2003, and 18 February 2004. Sampling events were conducted during the high temperature months of July and September, following the first flush in the fall, following winter dormant spraying in February, and again during the high runoff period in April or May.
Environmental Conditions: |
QAPP Information: | Data quality: Good. 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):