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

# Supporting Information

## Regional Board 5 - Central Valley Region

Water Body Name: | Feather River, North Fork (below Lake Almanor)
Water Body ID: | CAR5181200020020610144132
Water Body Type: | River & Stream

DECISION ID | 9990
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 listing under sections 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Data is available from 1 line of evidence for this pollutant. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is not sufficient justification for placing this water segment-pollution combination on the section 303(d) list. The recommendation is based on staff findings that 0 of 2 available concentrations exceeded the water quality objective and this does not exceed the allowable frequency using Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Table 3.1 of the listing policy recommends listing if a sample size of 2 has 2 or more samples that exceed the evaluation criteria.
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 9990

LOE ID: | 20562
Pollutant: | Cadmium
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water
Matrix: | Water
Fraction: | Total
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply
Number of Samples: | 2
Number of Exceedances: | 0
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Neither of the 2 samples collected by the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program exceeded the calculated CTR criterion for dissolved cadmium
Data Reference: | SWAMP data entered by SWRCB into BDAT database
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Total cadmium levels should not exceed the California Department of Public Health Primary MCL of 5 ug/L
Objective/Criterion Reference: | 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: | Samples were collected from the at East Branch North Fork Feather River above North Fork Feather River and above East Branch North Fork Feather River
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between June 19, 2001 and June 20, 2001
Environmental Conditions: |
QAPP Information: | Monitoring was conducted in accordance with the State Water Resources Control Board's Quality Assurance Program Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program.
QAPP Information Reference(s):

DECISION ID | 9992
Pollutant: | Chloride
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 listing under sections 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Data is available from 1 line of evidence for this pollutant. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is not sufficient justification for placing this water segment-pollution combination on the section 303(d) list. The recommendation is based on staff findings that only 1 sample is available and a minimum of 2 is needed for evaluation under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 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 it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.
SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
USEPA Decision: |

Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 9992

LOE ID: | 20354
Pollutant: | Chloride
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: | Zero of the 1 samples collected by the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program exceeded the evaluation objective for Chloride.
Data Reference: | SWAMP data entered by SWRCB into BDAT database
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. (CRWQCB, 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: | Chloride levels should not exceed 250 mg/L (Department of Public Health Secondary MCL).
Guideline Reference: | 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
Spatial Representation: | The sample was collected at East Branch North Fork Feather River above North Fork Feather River.
Temporal Representation: | The sample was collected on June 19 2001.
Environmental Conditions: |
QAPP Information: | Monitoring was conducted in accordance with the State Water Resources Control Board's Quality Assurance Program Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program.
QAPP Information Reference(s):

DECISION ID | 14549
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. 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 26 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 14549

LOE ID: | 22553
Pollutant: | Lead
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water
Matrix: | Water
Fraction: | Dissolved
Beneficial Use: | Water Contact Recreation
Number of Samples: | 26
Number of Exceedances: | 0
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | 26 samples were taken from Feather River between 2003 and 2004. 0 of the 26 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 the North Fork of the Feather River (downstream and upstream) from Poe Power House.
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected from March 2002 through April 2004. Samples were collected at monthly intervals.
Environmental Conditions: |
QAPP Information: | Data quality: Excellent. DWR. 2005. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Oroville Facilities Relicensing FERC Project No. 2100 SP-W1. Department of Water Resources (DWR). Oroville Facilities Relicensing FERC Project No. 2100. January 2005.
QAPP Information Reference(s):

DECISION ID | 9995
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 listing under sections 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Data is available from 1 line of evidence for this pollutant. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is not sufficient justification for placing this water segment-pollution combination on the section 303(d) list. The recommendation is based on staff findings that 0 of 2 available concentrations exceeded the water quality objective and this does not exceed the allowable frequency using Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 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 9995

LOE ID: | 20685
Pollutant: | Nickel
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water
Matrix: | Water
Fraction: | Total
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply
Number of Samples: | 2
Number of Exceedances: | 0
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Neither of the 2 samples collected by the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program exceeded the Primary MCL of 100 ug/L for total nickel
Data Reference: | SWAMP data entered by SWRCB into BDAT database
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Total nickel levels should not exceed 100 ug/L (Department of Public Health Primary MCL)
Objective/Criterion Reference: | 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: | Samples were collected from the East Branch North Fork Feather River above North Fork Feather River and from the North Fork Feather River at Domingo Springs.
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected on June 18, 2001 and on June 19, 2001
Environmental Conditions: |
QAPP Information: | Monitoring was conducted in accordance with the State Water Resources Control Board's Quality Assurance Program Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program.
QAPP Information Reference(s):

DECISION ID | 14548
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 3.1 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 27 samples fell below the criteria outlined in the Basin Plan 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 14548

LOE ID: | 22573
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: | 27
Number of Exceedances: | 0
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | 27 samples were taken from the Feather River- North Fork between March 2002 and April 2004. 0 sample exceeds the minimum dissolved oxygen concentration (7 mg/L) and 0 sample exceeds 5 mg/L.
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: | Sacramento/San Joaquin River Basin Plan (CVRWQCB, 2007a)(COLD), Minimum Dissolved Oxygen concentration of 7mg/L(SPWN), Minimum Dissolved Oxygen concentration of 7mg/L(WARM), Minimum Dissolved Oxygen concentration of 5mg/L
Objective/Criterion Reference: | 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 North Fork Up stream and Down Stream.
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 | 9996
Pollutant: | Selenium
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 listing under sections 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Data is available from 1 line of evidence for this pollutant. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is not sufficient justification for placing this water segment-pollution combination on the section 303(d) list. The recommendation is based on staff findings that 0 of 2 available concentrations exceeded the Department of Public Health Primary MCL and this does not exceed the allowable frequency using Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. The recommendation is based on staff findings that only 1 sample is available and a minimum of 2 samples is needed for evaluation under section 3.1 for the Cold Water Habitat. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 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 9996

LOE ID: | 20761
Pollutant: | Selenium
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water
Matrix: | Water
Fraction: | Total
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply
Number of Samples: | 2
Number of Exceedances: | 0
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | 0 of the 2 samples collected by the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program exceeded the evaluation objective for Selenium.
Data Reference: | SWAMP data entered by SWRCB into BDAT database
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. (CRWQCB, 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: | Selenium levels should not exceed 50 ug/L (Department of Public Health Primary MCL)
Guideline Reference: | 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
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected at East Branch North Fork Feather River above North Fork Feather River. Samples were collected at North Fork Feather River above East Branch North Fork Feather River.
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected from Dec 30 1899 to Dec 30 1899
Environmental Conditions: |
QAPP Information: | Monitoring was conducted in accordance with the State Water Resources Control Board's Quality Assurance Program Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program.
QAPP Information Reference(s):
LOE ID: | 6896
Pollutant: | Selenium
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water
Matrix: | Water
Fraction: | Total
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat
Number of Samples: | 1
Number of Exceedances: | 1
Data and Information Type: | Not Specified
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Zero of the 1 samples collected by the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program exceeded the evaluation objective for Selenium.
Data Reference: | SWAMP data entered by SWRCB into BDAT database
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. (CRWQCB, 2006) Selenium levels should not to exceed 5 ug/L (CTR)
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 at North Fork Feather River above East Branch North Fork Feather River.
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected from Jun 20 2001 to Jun 20 2001
Environmental Conditions: |
QAPP Information: | Monitoring was conducted in accordance with the State Water Resources Control Board's Quality Assurance Program Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program.
QAPP Information Reference(s):

DECISION ID | 9997
Pollutant: | Zinc
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 listing under sections 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Data is available from 1 line of evidence for this pollutant. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is not sufficient justification for placing this water segment-pollution combination on the section 303(d) list. The recommendation is based on staff findings that 0 of 5 available concentrations exceeded the water quality objective and this does not exceed the allowable frequency using Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 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 9997

LOE ID: | 20740
Pollutant: | Zinc
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water
Matrix: | Water
Fraction: | Total
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply
Number of Samples: | 2
Number of Exceedances: | 0
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Zero of the 2 samples collected by the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program exceeded the Secondary MCL for total zinc
Data Reference: | SWAMP data entered by SWRCB into BDAT database
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Total zinc levels should not exceed 5,000 ug/L (Department of Public Health Secondary MCL)
Objective/Criterion Reference: | 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: | Samples were collected from the East Branch of the North Fork Feather River above North Fork Feather River at Domingo Springs
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected on June 18, 2001, and June 19, 2001
Environmental Conditions: |
QAPP Information: | Monitoring was conducted in accordance with the State Water Resources Control Board's Quality Assurance Program Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program.
QAPP Information Reference(s):

DECISION ID | 5032
Pollutant: | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)
Final Listing Decision: | List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2006)
Revision Status | Revised
Sources: | Source Unknown
Expected TMDL Completion Date: | 2021
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant
Weight of Evidence: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 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 for 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. Fifteen of 20 samples exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal 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 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 5032

LOE ID: | 21822
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: | 3
Number of Exceedances: | 1
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 considered were the sum of PCB congeners (total PCBs), reported as ng/g, wet weight. OEHHA and SWAMP recommend use of total PCBs for evaluating contamination.Total PBCs in 1 of 3 composite samples exceeded 3.6 ng/g. Concentrations were less than the reporting limit (2 ng/g) in 2 composites of smallmouth bass and 18.0 ng/g in pikeminnow. Fork lengths of fish samples were greater than 200 mm. Composite samples were made of fillet samples from up to 5 individual fish of the same species.
Data Reference: | Oroville Facilities Relicensing-FERC Project No. 2100. Contaminant accumulation in fish, sediments, and the aquatic food chain. Sacramento, CA: State of CA Department of Water Resources
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. The objective applies regardless of whether the toxicity is caused by a single substance or the interactive effect of multiple substances.
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board - Central Valley Region
| California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 4, Chapter 15. Domestic Water Quality and Monitoring. http://www.cdph.ca.gov/certlic/drinkingwater/Pages/Lawbook.aspx
Evaluation Guideline: | The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Fish Contaminant Goal for total PCBs in fish is 3.6 ng/g (3.6 ppb), wet weight, to protect human health. This concentration in fish tissue should not be exceeded, based on a total fish and shellfish consumption rate of 8 ounces (prior to cooking) per week (32 g fish/day) (OEHHA, 2008). This goal incorporates a maximum cancer risk level of one in a million (no more than one additional cancer in a population of one million people consuming these fish).
Guideline Reference: | Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene
Spatial Representation: | Samples collected from the North Fork Feather River near Poe Powerhouse.
Temporal Representation: | Fish samples were collected on 07/31/03, 09/03/03, and 09/04/03.PCBs have been used in the Feather River watershed in electric power generation.
Environmental Conditions: |
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: | 26574
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: | 17
Number of Exceedances: | 14
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Three Sacramento suckers, 1 rainbow trout, 1 brown trout, 2 smallmouth bass, and several crayfish were collected from Belden Forebay (upstream of dredge disposal pile). Belden total PCB values in suckers ranged from 11.00-14.6 ppb (average = 12.9 ppb). The trout values were 2.6 ppb (rainbow) and 9.7 (brown). The bass PCB values were 5.70 and 14.90 ppb. The crayfish value was 0.80 ppb. Four Sacramento suckers, 4 rainbow trout, and several crayfish were collected from the North Fork of the Feather River (below the dredge disposal pile). Downstream total PCB values in suckers ranged from 2.30-7.30 ppb (average = 5.2 ppb). The trout values ranged from 5.10-6.70 ppb (average = 5.6 ppb). The crayfish value was 0.20 ppb. (PG&E, 2002).
Data Reference: | Oroville Facilities Relicensing-FERC Project No. 2100. Contaminant accumulation in fish, sediments, and the aquatic food chain. Sacramento, CA: State of CA Department of Water Resources
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. The objective applies regardless of whether the toxicity is caused by a single substance or the interactive effect of multiple substances.
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board - Central Valley Region
| California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 4, Chapter 15. Domestic Water Quality and Monitoring. http://www.cdph.ca.gov/certlic/drinkingwater/Pages/Lawbook.aspx
Evaluation Guideline: | The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Fish Contaminant Goal for total PCBs in fish is 3.6 ng/g (3.6 ppb), wet weight, to protect human health. This concentration in fish tissue should not be exceeded, based on a total fish and shellfish consumption rate of 8 ounces (prior to cooking) per week (32 g fish/day) (OEHHA, 2008). This goal incorporates a maximum cancer risk level of one in a million (no more than one additional cancer in a population of one million people consuming these fish).
Guideline Reference: | Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene
Spatial Representation: | Seven upstream fish samples and 8 downstream fish samples. Crayfish were collected in both areas.
Temporal Representation: | Upstream samples were collected August 14, 2001. Downstream samples were collected August 15, 2001. Environmental Conditions
Environmental Conditions: |
QAPP Information: | QA/QC information included in report. Appears to follow standard laboratory requirements.
QAPP Information Reference(s):

DECISION ID | 12953
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. Nine 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. Nine of 18 samples tested with Ceriodaphnia exceeded the narrative toxicity objective (survival and/or reproductive toxicity) and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Survival toxicity was reported in two of 18 samples and reproductive toxicity was reported in eight of 18 samples. Both survival and reproductive toxicity were reported for the 15 May 2002 sample, therefore, this event was only counted once when determining the total number of samples that exceeded the narrative toxicity objective. 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 12953

LOE ID: | 22631
Pollutant: | Toxicity
LOE Subgroup: | Toxicity
Matrix: | Water
Fraction: | Total
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat
Aquatic Life Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat
Number of Samples: | 18
Number of Exceedances: | 8
Data and Information Type: | TOXICITY TESTING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Eight of the 18 samples tested with Ceriodaphnia dubia exhibited reproductive toxicity and violated the narrative toxicity objective. The following is a summary of reproduction toxicity results by sampling location.North Fork Feather River downstream from Poe PowerhouseFive of the 10 samples tested exhibited reproductive toxicity and violated the narrative toxicity objective. Reproductive toxicity occurred in samples collected on the following dates (percent of control is indicated in parentheses): 15 May 2002 (35), 15 April 2003 (45), 15 July 2003 (24), 12 November 2003 (43), and 18 February 2004 (61).Poe Powerhouse DischargeThree of the 8 samples tested exhibited reproductive toxicity and violated the narrative toxicity objective. Reproductive toxicity occurred in samples collected on the following dates (percent of control is indicated in parentheses): 16 September 2003 (56), 12 November 2003 (72), and 18 February 2004 (36).
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 North Fork Feather River downstream of the Poe Powerhouse and at the Poe Powerhouse discharge point.
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected from the North Fork Feather River downstream of the Poe Powerhouse and at the Poe Powerhouse discharge point on the following dates: 15 May 2002 (only site downstream of Poe Powerhouse was sampled on this date), 15 July 2002 (only site downstream of Poe Powerhouse was sampled on this date), 24 September 2002, 12 November 2002, 18 February 2003, 15 April 2003, 15 July 2003, 16 September 2003, 12 November 2003, and 18 February 2004. Sampling events were conducted during the high temperature months of July and September, following the first flush in the fall, following winter dormant spraying in February, and again during the high runoff period in April or May.
Environmental Conditions: |
QAPP Information: | Data quality: Good. DWR. 2005. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Oroville Facilities Relicensing FERC Project No. 2100 SP-W1. Department of Water Resources (DWR). Oroville Facilities Relicensing FERC Project No. 2100. January 2005.
QAPP Information Reference(s):
LOE ID: | 22630
Pollutant: | Toxicity
LOE Subgroup: | Toxicity
Matrix: | Water
Fraction: | Total
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat
Aquatic Life Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat
Number of Samples: | 18
Number of Exceedances: | 2
Data and Information Type: | TOXICITY TESTING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Two of the 18 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 sampling location.North Fork Feather River downstream from Poe PowerhouseTwo of the 9 samples tested were toxic and violated the narrative toxicity objective. Toxic samples (percent survival in parentheses) were collected on the following dates: 15 May 2002 (70), 70% of control; and 16 September 2003 (50), 50% of control.Poe Powerhouse DischargeNone of the 9 samples tested were toxic and violated the narrative toxicity objective.
Data Reference: | Oroville Facilities Relicensing-FERC Project No. 2100. Contaminant accumulation in fish, sediments, and the aquatic food chain. Sacramento, CA: State of CA Department of Water Resources
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. This objective applies regardless of whether the toxicity is caused by a single substance or the interactive effect of multiple substances (CVRWQCB, 2007).
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board - Central Valley Region
Evaluation Guideline: | Statistically significant difference from control using a t-test with 7-day survival toxicity tests (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 North Fork Feather River downstream of the Poe Powerhouse and at the Poe Powerhouse discharge point.
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected from the North Fork Feather River downstream of the Poe Powerhouse and at the Poe Powerhouse discharge point on the following dates: 15 May 2002 (only site downstream of Poe Powerhouse was sampled on this date), 15 July 2002, 24 September 2002, 12 November 2002 (only site at Poe Powerhouse discharge point was sampled on this date), 18 February 2003, 15 April 2003, 15 July 2003, 16 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. 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 | 4415
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: | 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 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 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. Fourteen tissue samples exceed the USEPA fish tissue criterion for human health. 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. Fourteen of 59 tissue 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. 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: | This is a decision made by the State Water Resources Control Board and approved by the USEPA in 2006 . No new data were assessed by the Regional Board for 2008. The decision has not changed.
SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
USEPA Decision: |

Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 4415

LOE ID: | 2617
Pollutant: | Mercury
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue
Matrix: | Tissue
Fraction: | None
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms
Number of Samples: | 7
Number of Exceedances: | 0
Data and Information Type: | Fish tissue analysis
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Three Sacramento suckers, 1 rainbow trout, 1 brown trout, 2 smallmouth bass, and several crayfish were collected from Belden Forebay (upstream of dredge disposal pile). Belden total mercury values in suckers ranged from 54.7-92.8 ppb. The trout values were 54.5 ppb (rainbow) and 70.6 ppb (brown). The bass total mercury values were 114.0 and 56.7 ppb. The crayfish value was 33.3 ppb. No data were available from the North Fork of the Feather River (below the dredge disposal pile) (PG&E, 2002).
Data Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: |
Objective/Criterion Reference:
Evaluation Guideline: | The OEHHA screening value for protection of humans eating fish is 0.3 ppm or 300 ppb for mercury.
Guideline Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)
Spatial Representation: | Seven upstream fish samples were taken at Belden Forebay.
Temporal Representation: | Upstream samples were collected August 14, 2001.
Environmental Conditions: | Unknown, probably relatively low flows.
QAPP Information: | Extensive QA/QC information included in report. Appears to follow standard laboratory requirements.
QAPP Information Reference(s):
LOE ID: | 2616
Pollutant: | Mercury
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue
Matrix: | Tissue
Fraction: | None
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms
Number of Samples: | 52
Number of Exceedances: | 13
Data and Information Type: | Fish tissue analysis
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Six Sacramento suckers, 1 rainbow trout, 2 Sacramento pike minnow, and 9 smallmouth bass were collected upstream (of Poe Powerhouse). Upstream total mercury values in smallmouth bass ranged from 0.09-0.27 ppm (average = 0.13 ppm), however only 1 sample exceeded with a value of 0.90 ppm. The trout value was 0.07 ppm. The two pike minnow values were 0.33 and 0.18 ppm, with the 0.33 ppm sample exceeding the objective. Upstream Sacramento sucker values were unavailable. Six Sacramento suckers, 2 rainbow trout, 8 Sacramento pike minnow, 9 smallmouth bass, and 9 spotted bass were collected downstream (of Poe Powerhouse). Downstream total mercury values in smallmouth bass ranged from 0.11-0.32 ppm (average = 0.17 ppm), however 1 of the 9 samples exceeded the objective. Mercury values in spotted bass ranged from 0.19-0.65 ppm (average = 0.33 ppm), however 4 of the 9 samples exceeded the objective. Mercury values in pike minnows ranged from 0.22-0.98 ppm (average = 0.57 ppm), however 7 of the 8 samples exceeded the objective. The two trout values were 0.03 and 0.04 ppm. Downstream Sacramento sucker values were unavailable (PG&E, 2003a).
Data Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: |
Objective/Criterion Reference:
Evaluation Guideline: | The OEHHA screening value for protection of humans eating fish is 0.3 ppm for mercury (Brodberg & Pollock, 1999).
Guideline Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)
Spatial Representation: | Sampling: 18 upstream (of Poe Powerhouse) and 34 downstream fish tissue samples taken.
Temporal Representation: | Upstream data collected 11/21/2002 and 6/16/2003 as part of overall Poe Project (Poe Reservoir and Big Bend Dam reservoir below Poe Powerhouse). This data covers both winter (wet) and summer (dry) periods. Downstream data collected 12/4/2002, 12/5/2002, and 6/19/2003.
Environmental Conditions: | Data from both relatively low and relatively high flow periods are included.
QAPP Information: | Unknown, but PG&E was responsible.
QAPP Information Reference(s):

DECISION ID | 4567
Pollutant: | Aluminum
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2006)
Revision Status | Original
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. No samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient 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. None of 20 samples exceeded the CTR freshwater acute criterion 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: | 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: | This is a decision made by the State Water Resources Control Board and approved by the USEPA in 2006 . No new data were assessed by the Regional Board for 2008. The decision has not changed.
USEPA Decision: |

Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 4567

LOE ID: | 2621
Pollutant: | Aluminum
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water
Matrix: | Water
Fraction: | Total
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat
Number of Samples: | 20
Number of Exceedances: | 0
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | None of 20 samples exceeded the criterion. The spoil sample data were not used in the assessment. (PG&E, 2003).
Data Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)
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. CTR Freshwater acute criteria.
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)
Evaluation Guideline: | USEPA National Recommended Ambient Water Quality Criteria Freshwater Aquatic Life Protection CTR CMC (750 ug/L).
Guideline Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected above the Poe Reservoir (Poe 1-a), NFFR at Pulga (Poe-2),above the Poe Powerhouse (Poe-3); spoil pile samples were collected at Poe-S1A, NFFR upstream of culvert inflow (Poe-S2), NFFR above Poe Powerhouse, approximately 0.5 miles downstream of culvert inflow (Poe S-3), Poe S-4, RL and MDL. 2001-02 spoil pile samples were collected at Poe-adit, Poe L-1, NFFR downstream of Adit No. 2 (Poe L2), Poe L3, Adit No. 2 leakage culvert at inflow to NFFR (Poe L4), Poe L-5, Poe L-6, Poe T-1. In 2003, samples were collected at Poe 1-a, Poe 2-a, Poe 3, Poe-5, Poe-7, Flea Valley Creek and Mill Creek.
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected in March, Jun-Sept. and Dec. 99 and March 00; spoil pile samples were collected in April 00; Nov 01 and Jan 02. In 2003, samples were collected in March, May, Aug., and Oct.
Environmental Conditions: |
QAPP Information: | PG&E reports are considered of adequate quality per section 6.1.4 of the Policy.
QAPP Information Reference(s):

DECISION ID | 4569
Pollutant: | Manganese
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2006)
Revision Status | Original
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 measurements exceeded 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 40 samples exceeded the water quality objective and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
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: | This is a decision made by the State Water Resources Control Board and approved by the USEPA in 2006 . No new data were assessed by the Regional Board for 2008. The decision has not changed.
USEPA Decision: |

Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 4569

LOE ID: | 2623
Pollutant: | Manganese
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water
Matrix: | Water
Fraction: | Total
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply
Number of Samples: | 40
Number of Exceedances: | 0
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | None of 40 sampels exceeded the MCL. The spoil pile samples were not used. (PG&E, 2003).
Data Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | MCL of 50 ug/L used.
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)
Evaluation Guideline: |
Guideline Reference:
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected above the Poe Reservoir (Poe 1-a), NFFR at Pulga (Poe-2),above the Poe Powerhouse (Poe-3); spoil pile samples were collected at Poe-S1A, NFFR upstream of culvert inflow (Poe-S2), NFFR above Poe Powerhouse, approximately 0.5 miles downstream of culvert inflow (Poe S-3), Poe S-4, RL and MDL. 2001-02 spoil pile samples were collected at Poe-adit, Poe L-1, NFFR downstream of Adit No. 2 (Poe L2), Poe L3, Adit No. 2 leakage culvert at inflow to NFFR (Poe L4), Poe L-5, Poe L-6, Poe T-1. In 2003, samples were collected at Poe 1-a, Poe 2-a, Poe 3, Poe-5, Poe-7, Flea Valley Creek and Mill Creek
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected in March, Jun-Sept. and Dec. 99 and March 00; spoil pile samples were collected in April 00; Nov 01 and Jan 02. In 2003, samples were collected in March, May, Aug., and Oct.
Environmental Conditions: |
QAPP Information: | Data from PG&E reports are considered of adequate quality per section 6.1.4 of the Policy.
QAPP Information Reference(s):

DECISION ID | 4900
Pollutant: | Silver
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2006)
Revision Status | Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant
Weight of Evidence: | This pollutant is being considered for listing under sections 2.1, 3.5, and 3.10 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status while under section 3.10, a minimum of two lines of evidence are needed to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Based on section 3.5 pollutant levels are evident in tissue concentrations and it cannot be determined if the pollutant is likely to cause or contribute to a toxic effect. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is not 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. A pollutant specific evaluation guideline is not available that complies with the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 3. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the 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: | 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: | This is a decision made by the State Water Resources Control Board and approved by the USEPA in 2006 . No new data were assessed by the Regional Board for 2008. The decision has not changed.
USEPA Decision: |

Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 4900

LOE ID: | 2618
Pollutant: | Silver
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue
Matrix: | Tissue
Fraction: | None
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms
Number of Samples: | 0
Number of Exceedances: | 0
Data and Information Type: | Fish tissue analysis
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Three Sacramento suckers, 1 rainbow trout, 1 brown trout, 2 smallmouth bass, and several crayfish were collected from Belden Forebay (upstream of dredge disposal pile). Belden silver values in suckers ranged from 0.005-0.006 ppm. The trout values were 0.014 ppm (rainbow) and 0.010 ppm (brown). The bass PCB values were 0.004 and 0.002 ppm. The crayfish value was 0.023 ppm. No data were available from the North Fork of the Feather River (below the dredge disposal pile). (PG&E, 2002).
Data Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)
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: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)
Evaluation Guideline: |
Guideline Reference:
Spatial Representation: | Seven upstream fish samples.
Temporal Representation: | Upstream samples were collected August 14, 2001.
Environmental Conditions: | Unknown. Probably relatively low flows.
QAPP Information: | QA/QC information included in report. Appears to follow standard laboratory requirements.
QAPP Information Reference(s):

DECISION ID | 4345
Pollutant: | Specific Conductance
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2006)
Revision Status | Original
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. A small portion of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Three of 124 samples exceeded the water quality objective and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
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: | This is a decision made by the State Water Resources Control Board and approved by the USEPA in 2006 . No new data were assessed by the Regional Board for 2008. The decision has not changed.
USEPA Decision: |

Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 4345

LOE ID: | 2625
Pollutant: | Specific Conductance
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water
Matrix: | Water
Fraction: | Total
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat
Number of Samples: | 124
Number of Exceedances: | 3
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Three exceedances of the standard occurred and were collected at Poe-T1, Flea Valley Creek in Aug and Oct. (PG&E, 2003a).
Data Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Shall not exceed 150 micromhos/cm (90 percentile) in well-mixed waters of the Feather River (Basin Plan).
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)
Evaluation Guideline: |
Guideline Reference:
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected above the Poe Reservoir (Poe 1-a), NFFR at Pulga (Poe-2),above the Poe Powerhouse (Poe-3); spoil pile samples were collected at Poe-S1A, NFFR upstream of culvert inflow (Poe-S2), NFFR above Poe Powerhouse, approximately 0.5 miles downstream of culvert inflow (Poe S-3), Poe S-4, RL and MDL. 2001-02 spoil pile samples were collected at Poe-adit, Poe L-1, NFFR downstream of Adit No. 2 (Poe L2), Poe L3, Adit No. 2 leakage culvert at inflow to NFFR (Poe L4), Poe L-5, Poe L-6, Poe T-1. In 2003, samples were collected at Poe 1-a, Poe 2-a, Poe 3, Poe-5, Poe-7, Flea Valley Creek and Mill Creek.
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected in March, Jun-Sept. and Dec. 99 and March 00; spoil pile samples were collected in April 00; Nov 01 and Jan 02. In 2003, samples were collected in March, May, Aug., and Oct.
Environmental Conditions: |
QAPP Information: | Data from PG&E reports are considered of adequate quality per section 6.1.4 of the Policy.
QAPP Information Reference(s):

DECISION ID | 4566
Pollutant: | Turbidity
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2006)
Revision Status | Original
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 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status. One line of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Based on section 3.1 the site has exceeded the secondary MCL on a few occasions. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient 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. Five of 41 samples exceeded the secondary MCL and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.
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: | This is a decision made by the State Water Resources Control Board and approved by the USEPA in 2006 . No new data were assessed by the Regional Board for 2008. The decision has not changed.
USEPA Decision: |

Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 4566

LOE ID: | 2620
Pollutant: | Turbidity
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water
Matrix: | Water
Fraction: | Total
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat
Number of Samples: | 41
Number of Exceedances: | 5
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Five of 41 samples exceeded the MCL. The spoil pile data were not used because this location is not a part of the water body. (PG&E, 2002).
Data Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Waters shall be free of changes in turbidity that cause nuisance or adversely affect beneficial uses. Increases in turbidity attributable to controllable water quality factors shall not exceed the following limits: Where natural turbidity is between 0 and 5 Nephelometric Turbidity Units (NTUs), increases shall not exceed 1 NTU. Where natural turbidity is between 5 and 50 NTUs, increases shall not exceed 20 percent. Where natural turbidity is between 50 and 100 NTUs, increases shall not exceed 10 NTUs. Where natural turbidity is greater than 100 NTUs, increases shall not exceed 10 percent. In determining compliance with the above limits, appropriate averaging periods may be applied provided that beneficial uses will be fully protected. (Basin Plan)
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)
Evaluation Guideline: | Ca. Dept. of Health Services (DHS) Drinking water standards Secondary MCL.
Guideline Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)
Spatial Representation: | Eleven sites were sampled.
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected in 1999, 2000, and 2003.
Environmental Conditions: |
QAPP Information: | QA Info Missing
QAPP Information Reference(s):

DECISION ID | 4414
Pollutant: | Temperature, water
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: | Flow Regulation/Modification | Hydromodification
Expected TMDL Completion Date: | 2019
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. Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. A large number of annual maximum temperature values exceeded the 21.0°C criteria. Historical and current fisheries data shows that native fish species decline and change in abundance could be attributed to water temperature. 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. The total number of annual maximum temperatures was 41. Of this total, there were 35 values that exceeded the 21.0°C steelhead criteria and this exceeds 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: | 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: |
USEPA Decision: |

Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 4414

LOE ID: | 2611
Pollutant: | Temperature, water
LOE Subgroup: | Population/Community Degradation
Matrix: | Water
Fraction: | None
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat
Number of Samples: | 0
Number of Exceedances: | 0
Data and Information Type: | Not Specified
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Species of fishes present in the North Fork Feather River as of 1950 were: rainbow trout (in abundance), brown trout (in abundance), black bass (large & small mouth), suckers, squawfish (Sacramento pike), hardheads (Mylopharodon), carp, bullheads (cottoids), and dace. Rainbow trout spawn from December to May. Brown trout spawn from October to December. Historical surface water temperature records taken at Lake Almanor on the North Fork have shown the temperature approaching 80 degrees Fahrenheit, which is very near the limit of tolerance for trout. Shasta reservoir historical surface water temperature records have recorded temperatures of 90 degrees Fahrenheit. These temperatures were taken prior to the construction of the Rock Creek Dam and Cresta Dam diversions by PG&E (Wales et al. 1952).
Data Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | In the absence of necessary data to interpret numeric water quality objectives, recent temperature monitoring data shall be compared to the temperature requirements of aquatic life in the water segment. In many cases, fisheries, particularly salmonids, represent the beneficial uses most sensitive to temperature. Information on current and historic conditions and distribution of sensitive beneficial uses (e.g., fishery resources) in the water segment is necessary, as well as recent temperature data reflective of conditions experienced by the most sensitive life stage of the aquatic life species. If temperature data from past (historic) periods corresponding to times when the beneficial use was fully supported are not available, information about presence/absence or abundance of sensitive aquatic life species shall be used to infer past (historic) temperature conditions if loss of habitat, diversions, toxic spills, and other factors are also considered (Water Quality Control Policy for CWA Section 303(d) List, 2004).
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)
Evaluation Guideline: |
Guideline Reference:
Spatial Representation: | Feather River, North Fork and also at Lake Almanor on the Feather River and Shasta reservoir.
Temporal Representation: | 1950.
Environmental Conditions: | Changes in relative diversity and abundance of native cold freshwater species may also be driven by habitat alteration, flow changes, sedimentation, hydromodification or the introduction of non-native species.
QAPP Information: | Unknown.
QAPP Information Reference(s):
LOE ID: | 2606
Pollutant: | Temperature, water
LOE Subgroup: | Population/Community Degradation
Matrix: | -N/A
Fraction: | None
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat
Number of Samples: | 0
Number of Exceedances: | 0
Data and Information Type: | Not Specified
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | A photo from 1915 shows a Maidu Indian woman with her catch of fish for the day from the North Fork Feather River. There are 9 fish on her line and they appear to be trout (Young, J. 1915).
Data Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | In the absence of necessary data to interpret numeric water quality objectives, recent temperature monitoring data shall be compared to the temperature requirements of aquatic life in the water segment. In many cases, fisheries, particularly salmonids, represent the beneficial uses most sensitive to temperature. Information on current and historic conditions and distribution of sensitive beneficial uses (e.g., fishery resources) in the water segment is necessary, as well as recent temperature data reflective of conditions experienced by the most sensitive life stage of the aquatic life species. If temperature data from past (historic) periods corresponding to times when the beneficial use was fully supported are not available, information about presence/absence or abundance of sensitive aquatic life species shall be used to infer past (historic) temperature conditions if loss of habitat, diversions, toxic spills, and other factors are also considered (Water Quality Control Policy for CWA Section 303(d) List, 2004).
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)
Evaluation Guideline: |
Guideline Reference:
Spatial Representation: | North Fork Feather River.
Temporal Representation: | A photo from 1915.
Environmental Conditions: | Changes in relative diversity and abundance of native cold freshwater species may also be driven by habitat alteration, flow changes, sedimentation, hydromodification or the introduction of non-native species.
QAPP Information: | QA Info Missing
QAPP Information Reference(s):
LOE ID: | 2610
Pollutant: | Temperature, water
LOE Subgroup: | Population/Community Degradation
Matrix: | Water
Fraction: | None
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat
Number of Samples: | 0
Number of Exceedances: | 0
Data and Information Type: | Not Specified
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Trout were measured from the tip of the snout to the next larger 1/10 inch beyond the fork of the tail. Data were segregated into two halves, according to place of origin in the census section, using Mosquito Creek as the dividing line. Since anglers fished both above and below the Creek, there are three data categories: upper, lower and both sections. The average trout fork length was 10.17 inches. Trout consisted of 79.3% of total catch, suckers (Catostomus occidentalis) 11.6%, and hardheads (Mylopharodon conocephalus and Ptychocheilus grandis) 9.1%. Rainbow trout made up of about 60% of total catch and rough fish were 20.7%. Percentage of suckers in the catch remained remarkably similar throughout the summer. Rock Creek Reservoir is known to contain large numbers of hardheads and is two miles downstream of the census section. Hardheads did migrate into the lower section but did not migrate to any extent into the upper section. Total trout catch number was 6,615 with 3,795 trout caught in 11,511.5 angler-hours. Study concluded that catch numbers are dependent on skill of anglers, amount of angler-hours, and amount of fish in river. Conditions for growth were equally good in each section, since weight-length curves were virtually identical. Rainbow trout from the reduced flow Rock Creek Section 5-15 miles downstream weighed decidedly less at any length than those in the census section. Trout caught on season opening weekend of 1954 averaged a full inch longer than those caught in 1953; 10.7 inches versus 9.7 inches. In 1952, 40,000 rainbow trout fingerlings were planted. In 1953, 38,500 rainbow trout fingerlings were planted. In 1954, no rainbow trout fingerlings were planted (Rowley, W. 1955).
Data Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | In the absence of necessary data to interpret numeric water quality objectives, recent temperature monitoring data shall be compared to the temperature requirements of aquatic life in the water segment. In many cases, fisheries, particularly salmonids, represent the beneficial uses most sensitive to temperature. Information on current and historic conditions and distribution of sensitive beneficial uses (e.g., fishery resources) in the water segment is necessary, as well as recent temperature data reflective of conditions experienced by the most sensitive life stage of the aquatic life species. If temperature data from past (historic) periods corresponding to times when the beneficial use was fully supported are not available, information about presence/absence or abundance of sensitive aquatic life species shall be used to infer past (historic) temperature conditions if loss of habitat, diversions, toxic spills, and other factors are also considered (Water Quality Control Policy for CWA Section 303(d) List, 2004).
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)
Evaluation Guideline: |
Guideline Reference:
Spatial Representation: | Feather River, North Fork between Caribou Powerhouse and lower end of Gansner Bar. Census was divided into upper and lower sections. The upper section is designated from the Caribou Powerhouse to Mosquito Creek. The lower section is designated from the lower end of Gansner Bar to Mosquito Creek. Total length of the census section was 8.3 miles.
Temporal Representation: | Census was conducted in 1954 from May 29 to September 10. Other historical data from 1952 and 1953 were included in the report. Data collected in the 15-week census period were grouped into three 5-week periods, each of which included one of the 3-day holiday weekends.
Environmental Conditions: | Changes in relative diversity and abundance of native cold freshwater species may also be driven by habitat alteration, flow changes, sedimentation, hydromodification or the introduction of non-native species.
QAPP Information: | QA Info Missing
QAPP Information Reference(s):
LOE ID: | 2612
Pollutant: | Temperature, water
LOE Subgroup: | Population/Community Degradation
Matrix: | Water
Fraction: | None
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat
Number of Samples: | 0
Number of Exceedances: | 0
Data and Information Type: | Fish surveys
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Both native and non-native species; Sacramento sucker, smallmouth bass, hardhead, Sacramento pikeminnow, and riffle sculpin were captured at all 3 sampling sites within the Poe Project bypass reach on the North Fork Feather River. Common carp and rainbow trout were captured at Bardee Bar and common carp were captured at the Poe Powerhouse site. For all sites combined, there was a total of 313 fish caught. Of this total, only 1 rainbow trout was caught. This adult trout was caught by gillnet during the day at the Bardee Bar site. The number of fish caught at all the sites combined were: 118 Sacramento suckers, 83 smallmouth bass, 86 hardhead, 16 Sacramento pikeminnow, 6 riffle sculpin, 3 common carp and 1 rainbow trout (PG&E, 2003a).
Data Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | In the absence of necessary data to interpret numeric water quality objectives, recent temperature monitoring data shall be compared to the temperature requirements of aquatic life in the water segment. In many cases, fisheries, particularly salmonids, represent the beneficial uses most sensitive to temperature. Information on current and historic conditions and distribution of sensitive beneficial uses (e.g., fishery resources) in the water segment is necessary, as well as recent temperature data reflective of conditions experienced by the most sensitive life stage of the aquatic life species. If temperature data from past (historic) periods corresponding to times when the beneficial use was fully supported are not available, information about presence/absence or abundance of sensitive aquatic life species shall be used to infer past (historic) temperature conditions if loss of habitat, diversions, toxic spills, and other factors are also considered (Water Quality Control Policy for CWA Section 303(d) List, 2004).
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)
Evaluation Guideline: |
Guideline Reference:
Spatial Representation: | Three sites were sampled. They were located on the North Fork Feather River. The sites were the Bardee Bar site, at the Mill Creek Confluence site, and at the Poe Powerhouse site.
Temporal Representation: | Fish were surveyed during daylight and twilight hours based on this schedule: Mill Creek site on 9/26/00 from 10:40am-4:03pm and 4:50pm-6:30pm; Bardee Bar site on 9/27/00 from 11:25am-3:50pm and 4:25pm-5:50pm; and at the Poe Powerhouse site on 9/28/00 from 11:26am-4:37pm and 4:44pm-6:16pm.
Environmental Conditions: | Changes in relative diversity and abundance of native cold freshwater species may also be driven by habitat alteration, flow changes, sedimentation, hydromodification or the introduction of non-native species.
QAPP Information: | QA Info Missing
QAPP Information Reference(s):
LOE ID: | 2609
Pollutant: | Temperature, water
LOE Subgroup: | Population/Community Degradation
Matrix: | Water
Fraction: | None
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat
Number of Samples: | 0
Number of Exceedances: | 0
Data and Information Type: | Fish surveys
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | The completion in 1950 of the Rock Creek-Cresta Project on the North Fork Feather River has resulted in major reductions in the trout fishery. Prior to 1950 the river was a trophy rainbow trout fishery. Both rainbow and brown trout were in abundance prior to 1950. In 1946 there were an estimated 31,500 angler days with 3 trout caught per angler day or 1 fish per angler hour. By 1954 the catch per angler hour was 0.23 and 0.29. In 1976 there were approximately 2,000 angler days. By 1981 through 1985, the mean annual values of catch per angler hour were 0.21 and 0.18 respectively. For this study, which occurred from 1981-1986, daily minimum water temperatures exceeded 20 degrees C during much of midsummer and occasionally exceeded 22.5 degrees C. Daily maximum temperatures reached as high as 23.5 degrees C. Temperatures were even higher under extreme low flow conditions. Infectious fish diseases, such as C. Shasta, perpetuate more rapidly with increased water temperatures. This causes induced losses in native salmonids. This disease was found each year in fish sampled for this study. In this study, rainbow trout averaged 17.08 and 22.89% of the fish caught (Wixom, L.H. 1989).
Data Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | In the absence of necessary data to interpret numeric water quality objectives, recent temperature monitoring data shall be compared to the temperature requirements of aquatic life in the water segment. In many cases, fisheries, particularly salmonids, represent the beneficial uses most sensitive to temperature. Information on current and historic conditions and distribution of sensitive beneficial uses (e.g., fishery resources) in the water segment is necessary, as well as recent temperature data reflective of conditions experienced by the most sensitive life stage of the aquatic life species. If temperature data from past (historic) periods corresponding to times when the beneficial use was fully supported are not available, information about presence/absence or abundance of sensitive aquatic life species shall be used to infer past (historic) temperature conditions if loss of habitat, diversions, toxic spills, and other factors are also considered (Water Quality Control Policy for CWA Section 303(d) List, 2004).
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)
Evaluation Guideline: |
Guideline Reference:
Spatial Representation: | North Fork Feather River including the Rock Creek Cresta area.
Temporal Representation: | Monitoring occurred each fall from 1982 to 1985.
Environmental Conditions: | Changes in relative diversity and abundance of native cold freshwater species may also be driven by habitat alteration, flow changes, sedimentation, hydromodification or the introduction of non-native species.
QAPP Information: | QA Info Missing
QAPP Information Reference(s):
LOE ID: | 2608
Pollutant: | Temperature, water
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water
Matrix: | Water
Fraction: | None
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat
Number of Samples: | 41
Number of Exceedances: | 35
Data and Information Type: | Not Specified
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Temperature measurements were taken over the span of 4 years (1999, 2000, 2002 and 2003) from May or June to September at 25 different monitoring stations along the North Fork of the Feather River. For each station, temperature monitoring was continuous and taken at 5 or 15 minute intervals, depending on the station and year monitored, using digital thermographs. Based on the data provided, all 10 monitoring stations exceeded the 21.0 degrees C annual maximum criterion for steelhead either once or more than once during the sampling period from 1999 to 2003. For each monitoring year, each station had a set of 4 to 5 hourly maximum temperature values (except for those months when sampling did not occur), a value for each month. Based on each set of values the annual maximum temperature for each year was determined. There was a total of 41 annual maximum temperatures. Of this total, there were 35 annual maximum temperature values that exceeded the 21.0 degrees C criteria (PG&E, 2003c; PG&E, 2003a).
Data Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | "The natural receiving water temperature of intrastate waters shall not be altered unless it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Regional Water Board that such alteration in temperature does not adversely affect beneficial uses." "At no time or place shall the temperature of COLD or WARM intrastate waters be increased more than 5 degrees F above natural receiving water temperature. Temperature changes due to controllable factors shall be limited for the water bodies specified as described in Table III-4. To the extent of any conflict with the above, the more stringent objective applies."
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)
Evaluation Guideline: | The guideline used was from Sullivan et al. (2000). Published Temperature Thresholds-Peer Reviewed Literature, which includes reviewed sub-lethal and acute temperature thresholds from a wide range of studies, incorporating information from laboratory-based research, field observations, and risk assessment approaches. This report calculated the Annual Maximum (instantaneous maximum observed during the summer) upper threshold criterion for steelhead trout as 21.0 degrees C. The risk assessment approach used by Sullivan et al. (2000) suggests that an upper threshold for the Annual Maximum of 21.0 degrees C for steelhead will reduce average growth 10% from optimum.
Guideline Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)
Spatial Representation: | There were 25 sampling stations spanning the length of the North Fork of the Feather River. Ten of these stations were for years 1999, 2000 and 2003. Fifteen stations were for 2002.
Temporal Representation: | Samples were taken during 1999, 2000, 2002 and 2003 from either May or June to September. For each station, temperature monitoring was continuous and taken at 5 or 15 minute intervals, depending on the station and year monitored.
Environmental Conditions: |
QAPP Information: | High Quality - automatic data loggers, several years/water year types. Quality assurance well documented.
QAPP Information Reference(s):
LOE ID: | 2607
Pollutant: | Temperature, water
LOE Subgroup: | Population/Community Degradation
Matrix: | -N/A
Fraction: | None
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat
Number of Samples: | 0
Number of Exceedances: | 0
Data and Information Type: | Not Specified
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | There are 2 photos of anglers on the Feather River with baskets full of rainbow trout after a day of fishing (Parkhurst, G.Y. 1911).
Data Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | In the absence of necessary data to interpret numeric water quality objectives, recent temperature monitoring data shall be compared to the temperature requirements of aquatic life in the water segment. In many cases, fisheries, particularly salmonids, represent the beneficial uses most sensitive to temperature. Information on current and historic conditions and distribution of sensitive beneficial uses (e.g., fishery resources) in the water segment is necessary, as well as recent temperature data reflective of conditions experienced by the most sensitive life stage of the aquatic life species. If temperature data from past (historic) periods corresponding to times when the beneficial use was fully supported are not available, information about presence/absence or abundance of sensitive aquatic life species shall be used to infer past (historic) temperature conditions if loss of habitat, diversions, toxic spills, and other factors are also considered (Water Quality Control Policy for CWA Section 303(d) List, 2004).
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)
Evaluation Guideline: |
Guideline Reference:
Spatial Representation: | Photos of fishermen on the North Fork Feather River.
Temporal Representation: | The article was written in May of 1911.
Environmental Conditions: | Changes in relative diversity and abundance of native cold freshwater species may also be driven by habitat alteration, flow changes, sedimentation, hydromodification or the introduction of non-native species.
QAPP Information: | QA Info Missing
QAPP Information Reference(s):
LOE ID: | 2613
Pollutant: | Temperature, water
LOE Subgroup: | Population/Community Degradation
Matrix: | Water
Fraction: | None
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat
Number of Samples: | 0
Number of Exceedances: | 0
Data and Information Type: | Not Specified
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Sampling occurred at these large heavily fished streams for trout: on the North Fork Feather River, Seneca to Caribou, percentage composition by length: 5% were 1 inch to 2.9 inches (Fry), 26% were 3 inches to 5.9 inches (Yearlings), and 68% (Adults). North Fork Feather River, Caribou to Belden, percent composition by length: 0% were Fry, 5% were Yearlings, and 95% were Adults. North Fork Feather River, Rock Creek Dam to Cresta Powerhouse, percent composition by length: 0% were Fry, 2% were Yearlings, and 98% were Adults. In 1969 on the N.F. Feather River downstream from Caribou Powerhouse, the mean minimum flow was reduced from 1000 to 100 cfs. During 1954, before water diversion, the stream yielded 63 lbs/acre of trout to anglers. The standing crop was probably of similar magnitude. In 1972, three years after the flow had been reduced, the wild trout population dropped to 10 lbs/acre. This was probably due to a number of factors including but not limited to, decreased flow, increased surface water temperature, and possibly non-native species competition (Gerstung, E.R. 1973).
Data Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | In the absence of necessary data to interpret numeric water quality objectives, recent temperature monitoring data shall be compared to the temperature requirements of aquatic life in the water segment. In many cases, fisheries, particularly salmonids, represent the beneficial uses most sensitive to temperature. Information on current and historic conditions and distribution of sensitive beneficial uses (e.g., fishery resources) in the water segment is necessary, as well as recent temperature data reflective of conditions experienced by the most sensitive life stage of the aquatic life species. If temperature data from past (historic) periods corresponding to times when the beneficial use was fully supported are not available, information about presence/absence or abundance of sensitive aquatic life species shall be used to infer past (historic) temperature conditions if loss of habitat, diversions, toxic spills, and other factors are also considered (Water Quality Control Policy for CWA Section 303(d) List, 2004).
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)
Evaluation Guideline: |
Guideline Reference:
Spatial Representation: | Fish population estimates were collected by electro fishing and rotenone from 289 study sections on 102 coldwater streams within the northern Sierra Nevada.
Temporal Representation: | In the late summer. It appears the study occurred in 1972 and/or 1973.
Environmental Conditions: | Changes in relative diversity and abundance of native cold freshwater species may also be driven by habitat alteration, flow changes, sedimentation, hydromodification or the introduction of non-native species.
QAPP Information: | Peer Reviewed Journal Article.
QAPP Information Reference(s):