Water Body Name: | Redwood Creek HU, Redwood Creek |
Water Body ID: | CAR1071002019990528100152 |
Water Body Type: | River & Stream |
DECISION ID |
6086 |
Region 1 |
Redwood Creek HU, Redwood Creek |
||
Pollutant: | Temperature, water |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2006) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Sources: | Erosion/Siltation | Logging Road Construction/Maintenance | Natural Sources | Nonpoint Source | Range Grazing-Riparian | Removal of Riparian Vegetation | Silviculture | Streambank Modification/Destabilization |
Expected TMDL Completion Date: | 2019 |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for removal from the Section 303(d) List under Section 4.11 of the Listing Policy (SWRCB 2004).
Under the Policy a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess water temperature in Redwood Creek. The evidence demonstrates that the temperature water quality objective is not attained in Redwood Creek. Water temperatures do not reflect natural conditions as the environmental factors that influence water temperature have been altered by human activities. For example, there is a loss of shade provided by large conifers as a result of timber harvest and stream bank erosion. Additionally, water temperatures in Redwood Creek adversely affect beneficial uses. When compared to the 18°C MWMT evaluation guideline for non-core juvenile salmon and trout rearing (USEPA 2003), all 5 of the 5 MWMT values calculated for Redwood Creek from 2001 to 2005 exceed the evaluation guideline. The MWMT values range from 25.7°C to 28.3°C. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of the evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification to not remove this water segment-pollutant combination from the Section 303(d) List. In other words, there is sufficient justification for Redwood Creek to remain listed as temperature impaired. This conclusion is based on 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 evaluation of the data satisfies the temperature data evaluation requirements of Section 6.1.5.9 of the Policy. (4) The weight of the evidence indicates the temperature water quality objective is not attained, which requires the listing be maintained per Section 4.11 of the Policy. (5) Pursuant to Section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, Regional Water Board staff conclude that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the Section 303(d) List because the water quality objective for temperature is not attained. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
USEPA Action (if applicable): | USEPA approved the listing of this water body as a water quality limited segment requiring a TMDL for this pollutant. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 5374 | ||||
Pollutant: | Temperature, water | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Aquatic Life Use: | Fish Migration | Fish Spawning | Preservation of Rare & Endangered Species | Wildlife Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 5 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | The water temperatures of Redwood Creek do not reflect natural conditions as the environmental factors that influence water temperature have been altered by human activities. For example, as stated in the Redwood Creek Watershed Assessment Report (Cannata et al. 2006), there is a loss of shade provided by large conifers as a result of timber harvest and stream bank erosion, and the present habitat problems observed in most streams in the basin are often related to excessive sediment in stream channels and/or the lack of a large conifer contribution in riparian and nearstream forests. In order to determine if temperatures adversely affect beneficial uses, staff compared temperature data to the 18 C MWMT criterion/evaluation guideline from US EPA (2003). All 5 of the 5 MWMT values calculated for Redwood Creek exceed the evaluation guideline, indicating that water temperatures adversely affect beneficial uses. The MWMTs range from 25.7 to 28.3 C. The data are found in the "2005 Annual Report Upper Redwood Creek Juvenile Salmonid (Smolt) Downstream Migration Study 2000-2005 Seasons Project 2a5" (Sparkman 2005). | ||||
Data Reference: | Upper Redwood Creek Juvenile Salmonid (Smolt) Downstream Migration Study, Study Year 2005. California Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Game, Anadromous Fisheries Resource Assessment and Monitoring Program, Annual Report 2a5: 115 p. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Per the Basin Plan (NCRWQCB 2007, p. 3-4.00): 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 any COLD water be increased by more than 5 F above natural receiving water temperature. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - North Coast Region (Region 1) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | Per "U.S. EPA Region 10 Guidance for Pacific Northwest State and Tribal Temperature Water Quality Standards" (USEPA 2003), the recommended criterion for the protection of moderate to low density summertime salmon and trout juvenile rearing (i.e., non-core juvenile rearing) of a maximum weekly maximum temperature (MWMT) of 18 C. The MWMT is also known as the maximum 7-day average of daily maximums (7DADM). The 18 C MWMT criterion is recommended to (1) safely protect juvenile salmon and trout from lethal temperatures; (2) provide upper optimal conditions for juvenile growth under limited food during the period of summer maximum temperatures and optimal temperatures for other times of the growth season; (3) avoid temperatures where juvenile salmon and trout are at a competitive disadvantage with other fish; (4) protect against temperature induced elevated disease rates; and (5) provide temperatures that studies show juvenile salmon and trout prefer and are found in high densities. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | EPA Region 10 Guidance for Pacific Northwest State and Tribal Temperature Water Quality Standards. EPA 910-B-03-002. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 10 Office of Water, Seattle, WA. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Water temperature data were collected in the mainstem Redwood Creek in the Beaver Creek Hydrologic Area. The data logger was placed behind a rotary screw trap used for collected outmigrating smolts. The shallowest stream depths during which measurements were taken were about 2-3 feet. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Water temperature data were collected from the end of March to the end of August each year from 2001 to 2005. Measurements were taken every hour. Approximately 3,700 measurements were taken over the course of the study. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | There are no known environmental conditions (e.g., seasonality, land use practices, fire events, storms, etc.) that are related to these data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | Water temperatures were recorded with an Optic StowAway Temp data logger by Onset Computer Corporation. Two data loggers were used. Both gave the similar results and only data from one probe was included by Sparkman (2005). The data loggers were placed in a PVC cylinder with holes to ensure adequate ventilation and to prevent influences from direct sunlight. The MWMT values were determined following methods described by the 2005 draft of Madej et al. (2006). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Assessing Possible Thermal Rearing Restrictions for Juvenile Coho Salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) through Thermal Infrared Imaging and In-Stream Monitoring, Redwood Creek, California. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 63:1384-1396 | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 4755 | ||||
Pollutant: | Temperature, water | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
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: | This LOE is a placeholder to support a 303(d) listing decision made prior to 2006. | ||||
Data Reference: | Placeholder reference pre-2006 303(d) | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | |||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | |||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | |||||
Temporal Representation: | |||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Unspecified | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
17495 |
Region 1 |
Redwood Creek HU, Redwood Creek |
||
Pollutant: | Aldrin | Atrazine | Azinphos, Ethyl (Ethyl Guthion) | Bolstar | Carbofuran | Chlordane | Chlorothalonil | Chlorpyrifos | Chlorpyrifos, methyl | Ciodrin | Dacthal | Demeton s | Dichlofenthion | Dichlorvos | Dieldrin | Dimethoate | Dioxathion | Dyfonate (Fonofos or Fonophos) | Endrin | Endrin Ketone | Ethion | Ethoprop | Famphur | Fenchlorphos | Fenitrothion | Fensulfothion | Fenthion | Glyphosate | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), alpha | Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), beta | Leptophos | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Merphos | Methidathion | Methoxychlor | Methyl Parathion | Mevinphos | Molinate | Naled | Oxadiazon | Oxychlordane | Phorate | Phosmet | Phosphamidon | Prometon (Prometone) | Prometryn | Propazine | Secbumeton | Simazine | Simetryn | Sulfotep | Tedion | Terbufos | Terbuthylazine | Terbutryn | Tetrachlorvinphos | Thiobencarb/Bolero | Thionazin | Tokuthion | Toxaphene | Trichlorfon | Trichloronate | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | cis-Nonachlor | delta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or delta-HCH) | o,p'-DDD (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane)) | o,p'-DDE (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene) | p,p'-DDD (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane) | p,p'-DDE | p,p'-DDMU | trans-Nonachlor |
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 |
Regional Board Conclusion: | These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples in LOE #30144 exceed the water quality objective.The pollutants in LOE #29879 do not have water quality objectives and, therefore, a decision could not be made. The samples were analyzed for 93 pesticides, pesticide constituents, isomers, or metabolites. For each of the 93 pesticide analytes, 8 to 12 samples were collected. The samples were collected as part of the Surface Water Ambient Water Monitoring Program (SWAMP). The data are found in the 5-Year Monitoring Report (NCRWQCB 2008). 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 1072 samples for both LOEs, #29879, without criteria, or LOE #30144 with criteria, exceeded the water quality guidelines 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. |
Regional Board Decision 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. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
USEPA Action (if applicable): | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 30144 | ||||
Pollutant: | Aldrin | Atrazine | Carbofuran | Chlordane | Chlorpyrifos | Dacthal | Dieldrin | Endrin | Glyphosate | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), alpha | Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), beta | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Methoxychlor | Molinate | Simazine | Thiobencarb/Bolero | Toxaphene | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1072 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | None of the 1,072 pesticides samples collected in Redwood Creek exceed the objective as none of the samples either measured as non-detect or were measured as detected but not quantified with reporting limits below objectives or evaluation guidelines. Samples were analyzed for 93 pesticides, pesticide constituents, isomers, or metabolites. For each of the 93 pesticide analytes, 8 to 12 samples were collected. The samples were collected as part of the Surface Water Ambient Water Monitoring Program (SWAMP). The data are found in the 5-Year Monitoring Report (NCRWQCB 2008). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). Summary Report for the North Coast Region (RWQCB-1) for years 2000-2006. North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board. March 2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Per the Basin Plan (NCRWQCB 2007): No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no bioaccumulation of pesticide concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life. Waters designated for use as domestic or municipal supply shall not contain concentrations of pesticides in excess of the limiting concentrations set forth in California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 4, Chapter 15, Article 4, Section 64444, and listed in Table 3.2 of the Basin Plan.
No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of the pesticides assessed for this waterbody for the Municipal & Domestic Supply beneficial use could be found that meet the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. |
||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - North Coast Region (Region 1) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | Hexachlorocyclohexane, alpha (0.0026 ug/l)
Hexachlorocyclohexane, beta (0.0091ug/l) Aldrin (0.000049 ug/l) Atrazine (0.001 ug/l) Carbofuran (0.04 mg/l) Chlordane (0.0001 ug/l) Chlorpyrifos (0.083 ug/l) Dacthal (70 ug/l) Dieldrin (0.00014 ug/l) Endrin (0.002 ug/l) Glyphosate (700 ug/l) Heptachlor (0.01 ug/l) Heptachlor epoxide (0.01 ug/l) Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB (0.001 ug/l) Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) (.98 ug/l) Methoxychlor (0.03 mg/l) Molinate (0.02 mg/l) Simazine (0.04 mg/l) Thiobencarb/Bolero (0.07 mg/l) Toxaphene (0.003 mg/l) |
||||
Guideline Reference: | National recommended water quality criteria: 2002. EPA-822-R-02-047 Washington, D.C. USEPA | ||||
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 | |||||
California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 4, Chapter 15. Domestic Water Quality and Monitoring | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the mainstem Redwood Creek at Orick (SWAMP Station ID 107RDWDOR). Samples were collected from well-mixed flows in glides or riffles. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected from March 2001 to June 2006. Site visits corresponded to fall, winter, spring and early summer seasonal conditions. . | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | There are no known environmental conditions (e.g., seasonality, land use practices, fire events, storms, etc.) that are related to these data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | Quality control was conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (SWAMP 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 29879 | ||||
Pollutant: | Azinphos, Ethyl (Ethyl Guthion) | Bolstar | Carbofuran | Chlorothalonil | Chlorpyrifos, methyl | Ciodrin | Demeton s | Dichlofenthion | Dichlorvos | Dimethoate | Dioxathion | Dyfonate (Fonofos or Fonophos) | Endrin Ketone | Ethion | Ethoprop | Famphur | Fenchlorphos | Fenitrothion | Fensulfothion | Fenthion | Leptophos | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Merphos | Methidathion | Methyl Parathion | Mevinphos | Naled | Oxadiazon | Oxychlordane | Phorate | Phosmet | Phosphamidon | Prometon (Prometone) | Prometryn | Propazine | Secbumeton | Simetryn | Sulfotep | Tedion | Terbufos | Terbuthylazine | Terbutryn | Tetrachlorvinphos | Thiobencarb/Bolero | Thionazin | Tokuthion | Trichlorfon | Trichloronate | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | cis-Nonachlor | delta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or delta-HCH) | o,p'-DDD (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane)) | o,p'-DDE (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene) | p,p'-DDD (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane) | p,p'-DDE | p,p'-DDMU | trans-Nonachlor | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1072 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | None of the 1,072 pesticides samples collected in Redwood Creek exceed the objective as none of the samples either measured as non-detect or were measured as detected but not quantified with reporting limits below objectives or evaluation guidelines. Samples were analyzed for 93 pesticides, pesticide constituents, isomers, or metabolites. For each of the 93 pesticide analytes, 8 to 12 samples were collected. The samples were collected as part of the Surface Water Ambient Water Monitoring Program (SWAMP). The data are found in the 5-Year Monitoring Report (NCRWQCB 2008). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). Summary Report for the North Coast Region (RWQCB-1) for years 2000-2006. North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board. March 2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Per the Basin Plan (NCRWQCB 2007): No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no bioaccumulation of pesticide concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life. Waters designated for use as domestic or municipal supply shall not contain concentrations of pesticides in excess of the limiting concentrations set forth in California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 4, Chapter 15, Article 4, Section 64444, and listed in Table 3.2 of the Basin Plan.
No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of the pesticides assessed for this waterbody for the Municipal & Domestic Supply beneficial use could be found that meet the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. |
||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - North Coast Region (Region 1) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the mainstem Redwood Creek at Orick (SWAMP Station ID 107RDWDOR). Samples were collected from well-mixed flows in glides or riffles. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected from March 2001 to June 2006. Site visits corresponded to fall, winter, spring and early summer seasonal conditions. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | There are no known environmental conditions (e.g., seasonality, land use practices, fire events, storms, etc.) that are related to these data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | Quality control was conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (SWAMP 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
12321 |
Region 1 |
Redwood Creek HU, Redwood Creek |
||
Pollutant: | Aluminum |
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 |
Regional Board Conclusion: | 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 20 aluminum 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 (i.e., sufficient justification to not list). This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: (1) The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of Section 6.1.4 of the Policy. (2) The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of Section 6.1.5 of the Policy. (3) None of the 20 samples exceeded the aluminum 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. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, North Coast 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. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
USEPA Action (if applicable): | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 25367 | ||||
Pollutant: | Aluminum | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 20 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | None of the 20 aluminum samples collected from Redwood Creek exceed the objective. The samples were collected as part of the Surface Water Ambient Water Monitoring Program (SWAMP). The data are found in the SWAMP Summary Report for the North Coast Region for Years 2000-2006 (NCRWQCB 2008). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). Summary Report for the North Coast Region (RWQCB-1) for years 2000-2006. North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board. March 2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Per the Basin Plan (NCRWQCB 2007): The Maximum Contaminant Level for aluminum is 1.0 mg/l (1,000 ug/L). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - North Coast Region (Region 1) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the mainstem Redwood Creek at Orick (SWAMP Station ID 107RDWDOR). Samples were collected from well-mixed flows in glides or riffles. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected from March 2001 to June 2006. Site visits corresponded to fall, winter, spring and early summer seasonal conditions. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | There are no known environmental conditions (e.g., seasonality, land use practices, fire events, storms, etc.) that are related to these data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | Quality control was conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (Puckett 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
15733 |
Region 1 |
Redwood Creek HU, Redwood Creek |
||
Pollutant: | Ammonia as Nitrogen |
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 |
Regional Board Conclusion: | 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 23 ammonia as nitrogen samples exceed the 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 (i.e., sufficient justification to not list). This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: (1) The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of Section 6.1.4 of the Policy. (2) The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of Section 6.1.5 of the Policy. (3) None of the 23 samples exceed 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. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, North Coast Regional Water Board staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the Section 303(d) List because applicable water quality standards are being attained. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
USEPA Action (if applicable): | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 26304 | ||||
Pollutant: | Ammonia as Nitrogen | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Aquatic Life Use: | Fish Migration | Fish Spawning | Freshwater Replenishment | Preservation of Rare & Endangered Species | Wildlife Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 23 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | None of the 23 ammonia as nitrogen samples collected from Redwood Creek exceed the objective. The samples were collected as part of the Surface Water Ambient Water Monitoring Program (SWAMP). The data are found in the SWAMP Summary Report for the North Coast Region for Years 2000-2006 (NCRWQCB 2008). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). Summary Report for the North Coast Region (RWQCB-1) for years 2000-2006. North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board. March 2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Per the Basin Plan (NCRWQCB 2007): All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - North Coast Region (Region 1) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | Per the National Recommended Water Quality Criteria (USEPA 2006): The 1-hour average concentration (acute criterion or CMC) of total ammonia nitrogen (in mg N/L) for freshwater where salmonid fish are present, which is not to be exceeded more than once every three years on average, is calculated using the following equation: CMC=0.275/(1+10^(7.204 - pH)) + 39.0/(1+10^(pH - 7.204)). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Office of Science and Technology | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the mainstem Redwood Creek at Orick (SWAMP Station ID 107RDWDOR). Samples were collected from well-mixed flows in glides or riffles. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected from March 2001 to June 2006. Site visits corresponded to fall, winter, spring and early summer seasonal conditions. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | There are no known environmental conditions (e.g., seasonality, land use practices, fire events, storms, etc.) that are related to these data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | Quality control was conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (Puckett 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
10643 |
Region 1 |
Redwood Creek HU, Redwood Creek |
||
Pollutant: | Arsenic | Cadmium | Chromium (total) | Copper | Lead | Mercury | Nickel | Selenium | Silver | 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 |
Regional Board Conclusion: | 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 199 metals 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 (i.e., sufficient justification to not list). This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: (1) The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of Section 6.1.4 of the Policy. (2) The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of Section 6.1.5 of the Policy. (3) None of the 199 samples exceeded the metal objectives, and this does not exceed the allowable frequency of 17 per the binomial distribution described in Section 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. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, North Coast 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. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
USEPA Action (if applicable): | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 21516 | ||||
Pollutant: | Arsenic | Cadmium | Chromium (total) | Copper | Lead | Mercury | Nickel | Selenium | Silver | Zinc | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 199 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | None of the 199 metals samples collected in Redwood Creek exceed the objectives. There were 19 to 20 samples collected for each of the 10 metal parameters. The samples were collected as part of the Surface Water Ambient Water Monitoring Program (SWAMP). The data are found in the SWAMP Summary Report for the North Coast Region for Years 2000-2006 (NCRWQCB 2008). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). Summary Report for the North Coast Region (RWQCB-1) for years 2000-2006. North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board. March 2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Per the Basin Plan (NCRWQCB 2007): Arsenic objective is 0.05 mg/L. Cadmium objective is 0.01 mg/L. Chromium objective is 0.05 mg/L. Lead objective is 0.05 mg/L. Mercury objective is 0.002 mg/L. Selenium objective is 0.01 mg/L. Silver objective is 0.05 mg/L. Per 22 CCR 64431: Nickel maximum contaminant level is 0.1 mg/L. Per 22 CCR 64449: Copper secondary maximum contaminant level is 1.0 mg/L. Zinc secondary maximum contaminant level is 5.0 mg/L. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - North Coast Region (Region 1) | ||||
Title 22. Division 4. Chapter 15. Sections 64400 et seq. California Code of Regulations | |||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the mainstem Redwood Creek at Orick (SWAMP Station ID 107RDWDOR). Samples were collected from well-mixed flows in glides or riffles. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected from March 2001 to June 2006. Site visits corresponded to fall, winter, spring and early summer seasonal conditions. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | There are no known environmental conditions (e.g., seasonality, land use practices, fire events, storms, etc.) that are related to these data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | Quality control was conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (SWAMP 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
12442 |
Region 1 |
Redwood Creek HU, Redwood Creek |
||
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 |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the Section 303(d) List under Section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under Section 3.2, a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the 23 chloride samples exceed the evaluation guideline. 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 (i.e., sufficient justification to not list). This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: (1) The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of Section 6.1.4 of the Policy. (2) The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of Section 6.1.5 of the Policy. (3) None of the 23 samples exceeded the chloride evaluation guideline used to interpret the water quality objective, and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy. (4) Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, North Coast 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. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
USEPA Action (if applicable): | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 25420 | ||||
Pollutant: | Chloride | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Not Recorded | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 23 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | None of the 23 chloride samples collected in Redwood Creek exceed the evaluation guideline. The samples were collected as part of the Surface Water Ambient Water Monitoring Program (SWAMP). The data are found in the SWAMP Summary Report for the North Coast Region for Years 2000-2006 (NCRWQCB 2008). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). Summary Report for the North Coast Region (RWQCB-1) for years 2000-2006. North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board. March 2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Per the Basin Plan (NCRWQCB 2007): Waters shall not contain taste- or odor-producing substances in concentrations that impart undesirable tastes or odors to fish flesh or other edible products of aquatic origin, or that cause nuisance or adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - North Coast Region (Region 1) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | Per 22 CCR 64449: The recommended Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level for chloride is 250 mg/L. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Title 22. Division 4. Chapter 15. Sections 64400 et seq. California Code of Regulations | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the mainstem Redwood Creek at Orick (SWAMP Station ID 107RDWDOR). Samples were collected from well-mixed flows in glides or riffles. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected from March 2001 to June 2006. Site visits corresponded to fall, winter, spring and early summer seasonal conditions. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | There are no known environmental conditions (e.g., seasonality, land use practices, fire events, storms, etc.) that are related to these data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | Quality control was conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (SWAMP 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
12484 |
Region 1 |
Redwood Creek HU, Redwood Creek |
||
Pollutant: | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) |
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 |
Regional Board Conclusion: | 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 600 polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) samples exceed the evaluation guideline. 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 (i.e., sufficient justification to not list). This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: (1) The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of Section 6.1.4 of the Policy. (2) The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of Section 6.1.5 of the Policy. (3) None of the 600 samples exceeded the PCB evaluation guideline used to interpret the water quality objective, and this does not exceed the allowable frequency of 52 per the binomial distribution described in Section 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. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, North Coast 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. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
USEPA Action (if applicable): | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 25463 | ||||
Pollutant: | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 600 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | None of the 600 polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) analytes collected in Redwood Creek exceed the evaluation guideline. Each of the 12 samples were analyzed for 50 PCB cogeners. The samples were collected as part of the Surface Water Ambient Water Monitoring Program (SWAMP). The data are found in the 5-Year Monitoring Report (NCRWQCB 2008). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). Summary Report for the North Coast Region (RWQCB-1) for years 2000-2006. North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board. March 2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Per the Basin Plan (NCRWQCB 2007, p. 3-4.00): All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - North Coast Region (Region 1) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | Per the "Public Health Goal for Water Soluble Polychlorinated Biphenyls Expected to Found in Drinking Water" (OEHHA 2007): The health-protective concentration of water-soluble PCBs in
drinking water associated with a one in one million extra lifetime cancer risk is 0.09 ug/L. |
||||
Guideline Reference: | Public Health Goal for Water Soluble Polychlorinated Biphenyls Expected to Be Found in Drinking Water. Pesticide and Environmental Toxicology Branch, Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, California Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the mainstem Redwood Creek at Orick (SWAMP Station ID 107RDWDOR). Samples were collected from well-mixed flows in glides or riffles. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected from March 2001 to June 2006. Site visits corresponded to fall, winter, spring and early summer seasonal conditions. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | There are no known environmental conditions (e.g., seasonality, land use practices, fire events, storms, etc.) that are related to these data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | Quality control was conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (SWAMP 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
10023 |
Region 1 |
Redwood Creek HU, Redwood Creek |
||
Pollutant: | Specific Conductivity |
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 |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the Section 303(d) list under Section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under Section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the 23 specific conductivity 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 (i.e., sufficient justification to not list). This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: (1) The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of Section 6.1.4 of the Policy. (2) The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of Section 6.1.5 of the Policy. (3) None of the 23 samples exceed the specific conductivity objective, and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy. (4) Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, North Coast 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. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
USEPA Action (if applicable): | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 21230 | ||||
Pollutant: | Specific Conductivity | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 23 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | None of the 23 specific conductivity samples collected from Redwood Creek exceed the objective. The samples were collected as part of the Surface Water Ambient Water Monitoring Program (SWAMP). The data are found in the SWAMP Summary Report for the North Coast Region for Years 2000-2006 (NCRWQCB 2008). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). Summary Report for the North Coast Region (RWQCB-1) for years 2000-2006. North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board. March 2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Per the Basin Plan (NCRWQCB 2007): The 90% upper limit specific conductance objective at 77 F is 220 micromhos (or mS/cm2). The 50% upper limit specific conductance objective at 77 F is 125 micromhos (or mS/cm2). The 90% and 50% upper limits represent the 90/50 percentile values for a calendar year. 90% or 50% or more of the values must be less than or equal to the upper limit. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - North Coast Region (Region 1) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the mainstem Redwood Creek at Orick (SWAMP Station ID 107RDWDOR). Samples were collected from well-mixed flows in glides or riffles. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected from March 2001 to June 2006. Site visits corresponded to fall, winter, spring and early summer seasonal conditions. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | There are no known environmental conditions (e.g., seasonality, land use practices, fire events, storms, etc.) that are related to these data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | Quality control was conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (Puckett 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
12512 |
Region 1 |
Redwood Creek HU, Redwood Creek |
||
Pollutant: | Sulfates |
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 |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the Section 303(d) List under Section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under Section 3.2, a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the 23 sulfate samples exceed the evaluation guideline. 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 (i.e., sufficient justification to not list). This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: (1) The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of Section 6.1.4 of the Policy. (2) The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of Section 6.1.5 of the Policy. (3) None of the 23 samples exceed the sulfate evaluation guideline used to interpret the water quality objective, and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy. (4) Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, North Coast 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. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
USEPA Action (if applicable): | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 25529 | ||||
Pollutant: | Sulfates | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Not Recorded | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 23 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | None of the 23 sulfate samples collected in Redwood Creek exceed the evaluation guideline. The samples were collected as part of the Surface Water Ambient Water Monitoring Program (SWAMP). The data are found in the 5-Year Monitoring Report (NCRWQCB 2008). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). Summary Report for the North Coast Region (RWQCB-1) for years 2000-2006. North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board. March 2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Per the Basin Plan (NCRWQCB 2007, p. 3-3.00): Waters shall not contain taste- or odor-producing substances in concentrations that impart undesirable tastes or odors to fish flesh or other edible products of aquatic origin, or that cause nuisance or adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - North Coast Region (Region 1) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | Per 22 CCR 64449 (Table 64449-B): The recommended secondary maximum contaminant level for sulfate is 250 mg/L. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Title 22. Division 4. Chapter 15. Sections 64400 et seq. California Code of Regulations | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the mainstem Redwood Creek at Orick (SWAMP Station ID 107RDWDOR). Samples were collected from well-mixed flows in glides or riffles. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected from March 2001 to June 2006. Site visits corresponded to fall, winter, spring and early summer seasonal conditions. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | There are no known environmental conditions (e.g., seasonality, land use practices, fire events, storms, etc.) that are related to these data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | Quality control was conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (SWAMP 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
6673 |
Region 1 |
Redwood Creek HU, Redwood Creek |
||
Pollutant: | Sedimentation/Siltation |
Final Listing Decision: | List on 303(d) list (being addressed by USEPA approved TMDL) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | List on 303(d) list (being addressed by USEPA approved TMDL)(2006) |
Revision Status | Original |
Sources: | Construction/Land Development | Disturbed Sites (Land Develop.) | Erosion/Siltation | Harvesting, Restoration, Residue Management | Logging Road Construction/Maintenance | Natural Sources | Range Grazing-Riparian | Removal of Riparian Vegetation | Silviculture | Streambank Modification/Destabilization |
TMDL Name: | Redwood Creek |
TMDL Project Code: | 507 |
Date TMDL Approved by USEPA: | 12/30/1998 |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for listing under section 2.2 of the Listing Policy. Under this section of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.
The "Redwood Creek Sediment Total Maximum Daily Load" was approved by the USEPA on December 30, 1998. Based on the readily available information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of placing this water segment-pollutant combination in the Water Quality Limited Segments Being Addressed portion of the Section 303(d) List. |
Regional Board Decision 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. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
USEPA Action (if applicable): | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 1676 | ||||
Pollutant: | Sedimentation/Siltation | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
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: | UnspecifiedThis LOE is a placeholder to support a 303(d) listing decision made prior to 2006. | ||||
Data Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | |||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | |||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | |||||
Temporal Representation: | |||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | QA Info Missing | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||