Final California 2010 Integrated Report (303(d) List/305(b) Report)

Supporting Information

Regional Board 1 - North Coast Region

Water Body Name:	Mendocino Coast HU, Rockport HA, Wages Creek HSA, Wages Creek
Water Body ID:	CAR1131202219990616160101
Water Body Type:	River & Stream


DECISION ID	15749	Region 1
Mendocino Coast HU, Rockport HA, Wages Creek HSA, Wages 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 2 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 2 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):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 15749, Ammonia as Nitrogen	Region 1
Mendocino Coast HU, Rockport HA, Wages Creek HSA, Wages Creek

LOE ID:

26320

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:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

None of the 2 ammonia as nitrogen samples collected from Wages 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:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from Wages Creek at Highway 1 (SWAMP Station ID 113WAGHW1). Samples were collected from well-mixed flows in glides or riffles.

Temporal Representation:

Samples were collected as grab samples during 2 site visits from May to June 2001.

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	12458	Region 1
Mendocino Coast HU, Rockport HA, Wages Creek HSA, Wages 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 2 chloride samples exceed the evaluation guideline. The weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient information available to determine if it is appropriate to place this water segment-pollutant combination on the Section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. Per Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy, a minimum of 5 samples are needed, and only 2 samples are available. This conclusion is also based on the staff findings that: (1) The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of Section 6.1.4 of the Policy. (2) 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 it cannot be determined if 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):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 12458, Chloride	Region 1
Mendocino Coast HU, Rockport HA, Wages Creek HSA, Wages Creek

LOE ID:

25436

Pollutant:

Chloride

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Not Recorded

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

None of the 2 chloride samples collected in Wages 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 Wages Creek at Highway 1 (SWAMP Station ID 113WAGHW1). Samples were collected from well-mixed flows in glides or riffles.

Temporal Representation:

Samples were collected as grab samples during 2 site visits from May to June 2001.

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	10659	Region 1
Mendocino Coast HU, Rockport HA, Wages Creek HSA, Wages Creek

Pollutant:	Lead \| 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 3 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 3 samples exceeded the metal objectives, 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):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 10659, Multiple Pollutants	Region 1
Mendocino Coast HU, Rockport HA, Wages Creek HSA, Wages Creek

LOE ID:

21532

Pollutant:

Lead | Zinc

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

None of the 3 metal samples collected in Wages Creek exceed the objectives. Two samples were analyzed for lead and 1 sample was analyzed for zinc. 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): Lead objective is 0.05 mg/L. Per 22 CCR 64449: 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 Wages Creek at Highway 1 (SWAMP Station ID 113WAGHW1). Samples were collected from well-mixed flows in glides or riffles.

Temporal Representation:

Samples were collected as grab samples during 2 site visits from May to June 2001.

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	10558	Region 1
Mendocino Coast HU, Rockport HA, Wages Creek HSA, Wages 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 2 specific conductivity samples exceed the water quality objective. The weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient information available to determine if it is appropriate to place this water segment-pollutant combination on the Section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. Per Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy, a minimum of 5 samples are needed, and only 2 samples are available. This conclusion is also based on the staff findings that: (1) The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of Section 6.1.4 of the Policy. (2) 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 it cannot be determined if 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):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 10558, Specific Conductivity	Region 1
Mendocino Coast HU, Rockport HA, Wages Creek HSA, Wages Creek

LOE ID:

21306

Pollutant:

Specific Conductivity

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

None of the 2 specific conductivity grab samples collected from Wages 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:

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 (MCL) is 900 uS/cm.

Guideline Reference:

Title 22. Division 4. Chapter 15. Sections 64400 et seq. California Code of Regulations

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from Wages Creek at Highway 1 (SWAMP Station ID 113WAGHW1). Samples were collected from well-mixed flows in glides or riffles.

Temporal Representation:

Samples were collected as grab samples during 2 site visits from May to June 2001.

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	12528	Region 1
Mendocino Coast HU, Rockport HA, Wages Creek HSA, Wages 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 2 sulfate samples exceed the evaluation guideline. The weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient information available to determine if it is appropriate to place this water segment-pollutant combination on the Section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. Per Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy, a minimum of 5 samples are needed, and only 2 samples are available. This conclusion is also based on the staff findings that: (1) The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of Section 6.1.4 of the Policy. (2) 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 it cannot be determined if 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):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 12528, Sulfates	Region 1
Mendocino Coast HU, Rockport HA, Wages Creek HSA, Wages Creek

LOE ID:

25545

Pollutant:

Sulfates

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Not Recorded

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

None of the 2 sulfate samples collected in Wages 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 Wages Creek at Highway 1 (SWAMP Station ID 113WAGHW1). Samples were collected from well-mixed flows in glides or riffles.

Temporal Representation:

Samples were collected as grab samples during 2 site visits from May to June 2001.

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	4538	Region 1
Mendocino Coast HU, Rockport HA, Wages Creek HSA, Wages Creek

Pollutant:	Temperature, water
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

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess temperature consistent with Listing Policy section 6.1.5.9. When compared to the 14.8 °C coho threshold, there were 12 exceedances out of 1,214 total samples taken over all the sampling years at this location. When compared to the 17°C steelhead threshold there were no exceedances found for any of the data. 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. There were 12 of 1,214 total samples that exceeded the Sullivan 14.8 °C evaluation guideline used to interpret the water quality objective and this does not exceed the allowable frequency calculated from the equation 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:	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):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 4538, Temperature, water	Region 1
Mendocino Coast HU, Rockport HA, Wages Creek HSA, Wages Creek

LOE ID:

1686

Pollutant:

Temperature, water

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

1214

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

When the data was compared to the 14.8 °C coho threshold, there were 12 exceedances out of 1,214 total samples taken over all the sampling years at this location. When compared to the 17°C steelhead threshold there were no exceedances found for any of the data. (Hawthorne Timber Co., 2003)

Data Reference:

Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Basin Plan: Temperature objectives for COLD interstate waters, WARM interstate waters, and Enclosed Bays and Estuaries are as specified in the "Water Quality Control Plan for Control of Temperature in the Coastal and Interstate Waters and Enclosed Bays of California" including any revisions thereto. A copy of this plan is included verbatim in the Appendix Section of this Plan. In addition, the following temperature objectives apply to surface waters: 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. At no time or place shall the temperature of WARM intrastate waters be increased more than 5 F above natural receiving water temperature.

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 7-day Mean (maximum value of the 7-day moving average of the daily mean temperature) upper threshold criterion for coho salmon as 14.8°C and for steelhead trout as 17.0°C. The risk assessment approach used by Sullivan et al. (2000) suggests that an upper threshold for the 7-day average of 14.8°C for coho and 17.0°C for steelhead will reduce average growth 10% from optimum.

Guideline Reference:

Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)

Spatial Representation:

There was one sampling location along the mainstem of the Wages Creek, with 10 years of sampling information. Maps of the sampling locations were provided including Lat-Long Coordinates. Hobo-Temps were placed in the pools near the bottom and towards the deepest portion to record the in-stream temperatures. In stream and riparian measurements were taken at all monitoring locations.

Temporal Representation:

Data was recorded for 10 years, from 1994 to 2003. Water temperature data was recorded at 90-minute intervals, generally from June until Mid-October. Stream temperatures were measured continuously with temperature data loggers (Onset Computer Corp. model HOBO-Temp and OST temperature loggers) in Class 1 streams throughout the property from 1994 to 2003. Hobo-temps allowed uninterrupted data collection to occur throughout the critical summer period.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

QA/QC Information Summary was submitted. Installation of the temperature data logger (Onset Computer Corp. model HOBO-Temp and OST temperature loggers in Class 1 streams throughout the property) devices occurred one day before the first day logged on the continuous temperature monitoring figures. This was done to allow the data loggers to reach equilibrium with the instream temperature regimes and to capture complete daily cycles. No information on equipment calibration, standard operating procedures or data protocols were included with the submittal.

QAPP Information Reference(s):