Water Body Name: | Eureka Plain HU, Freshwater Creek |
Water Body ID: | CAR1100005019980707102630 |
Water Body Type: | River & Stream |
DECISION ID |
20149 |
Region 1 |
Eureka Plain HU, Freshwater Creek |
||
Pollutant: | Sedimentation/Siltation |
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)(2010) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Sources: | Flow Alteration/Regulation/Modification | Removal of Riparian Vegetation |
Expected TMDL Completion Date: | 2017 |
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. Under this section when all other delisting factors do not result in the delisting of a water segment but information indicates attainment of standards, a water segment shall be evaluated to determine whether the weight of evidence demonstrates that water quality standard is attained. If the weight of evidence indicates attainment, the water segment shall be removed from the section 303(d) list.
Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list (i.e., sufficient justification to not delist). 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 following information indicates that the water quality standard is not attained: Ten of ten samples from Freshwater Creek exceeded the evaluation guideline used to interpret the narrative objective. Current conditions indicate that the water body is impaired by sediment and beneficial uses are not protected. (3) This process is scientifically defensible and reproducible. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded. |
State Board Staff 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. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 3668 | ||||
Pollutant: | Sedimentation/Siltation | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Not Specified | ||||
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: | Unknown | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Unknown | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Unknown | ||||
QAPP Information: | Unknown | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 46621 | ||||
Pollutant: | Sedimentation/Siltation | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 4 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Four of 4 years of suspended sediment concentration data at site HHB on the mainstem of Freshwater Creek had SEV index values that exceed the evaluation guideline. When assessing chronic exposure, maximum SEV index values over the four years range from 10.5 to 11.4, which equates to at least 20 mg/L of suspended sediment concentrations for at least 206 continuous hours of exposure. | ||||
Data Reference: | Salmon Forever Sediment Data Package For: 2012 California Integrated Report - Surface Water Quality Assessment and List of Impaired Waters [Clean Water Act Sections 305(b) and 303(d)]. | ||||
Review of 2012 Integrated Report Data as Submitted by Salmon Forever For Elk River and Freshwater Creek. Memo from Adona White to Katharine Carter, Regional Water Board staff. April 3, 2013. 17pp. | |||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water Quality Control Plan, North Coast Region (NCRWQCB 2011): The suspended sediment load and suspended sediment discharge rate of surface waters shall not be altered in such a manner as to cause nuisance or adversely affect beneficial uses. Also, Waters shall not contain suspended material in concentrations that cause nuisance or adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the North Coast Region | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The effects of suspended sediment on beneficial uses associated with the cold water fishery is estimated by the Severity of Ill Effects (SEV) Index for salmonid eggs and larvae life stages, which is a dose-response value calculated by assessing the concentration of suspended sediment and the number of continuous hours that concentration is present (Newcombe and Jensen 1996). Regional Water Board staff determined that a SEV index value of 4 (which equates to a short-term reduction in feeding rates and/or feeding success) or greater represents significant harm to salmonids so as to be detrimental to the beneficial uses associated with the cold water fishery (NCRWQCB 2006). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Channel Suspended Sediment and Fisheries : A Synthesis For Quantitative Assessment of Risk and Impact | ||||
Desired Salmonid Freshwater Habitat Conditions for Sediment-Related Indices. State of California North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected in the mainstem of Freshwater Creek 400 yards above Freshwater Park at site HHB. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Continuous SSC data were collected from 2005-2008, and SEVs were calculated for the winter season from December 1 to April 30.. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | A suspended sediment and turbidity monitoring QAPP was submitted along with standard operating procedures. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Salmon Forever Sediment Data Package For: 2012 California Integrated Report - Surface Water Quality Assessment and List of Impaired Waters [Clean Water Act Sections 305(b) and 303(d)]. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 46620 | ||||
Pollutant: | Sedimentation/Siltation | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 6 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Six of 6 years of suspended sediment concentration data at site FTR on the mainstem of Freshwater Creek had SEV index values that exceed the evaluation guideline. When assessing chronic exposure, maximum SEV index values over the six years range from 10.0 to 11.4, which equates to at least 20 mg/L of suspended sediment concentrations for at least 135 continuous hours of exposure. | ||||
Data Reference: | Salmon Forever Sediment Data Package For: 2012 California Integrated Report - Surface Water Quality Assessment and List of Impaired Waters [Clean Water Act Sections 305(b) and 303(d)]. | ||||
Review of 2012 Integrated Report Data as Submitted by Salmon Forever For Elk River and Freshwater Creek. Memo from Adona White to Katharine Carter, Regional Water Board staff. April 3, 2013. 17pp. | |||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water Quality Control Plan, North Coast Region (NCRWQCB 2011): The suspended sediment load and suspended sediment discharge rate of surface waters shall not be altered in such a manner as to cause nuisance or adversely affect beneficial uses. Also, Waters shall not contain suspended material in concentrations that cause nuisance or adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the North Coast Region | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The effects of suspended sediment on beneficial uses associated with the cold water fishery is estimated by the Severity of Ill Effects (SEV) Index for salmonid eggs and larvae life stages, which is a dose-response value calculated by assessing the concentration of suspended sediment and the number of continuous hours that concentration is present (Newcombe and Jensen 1996). Regional Water Board staff determined that a SEV index value of 4 (which equates to a short-term reduction in feeding rates and/or feeding success) or greater represents significant harm to salmonids so as to be detrimental to the beneficial uses associated with the cold water fishery (NCRWQCB 2006). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Channel Suspended Sediment and Fisheries : A Synthesis For Quantitative Assessment of Risk and Impact | ||||
Desired Salmonid Freshwater Habitat Conditions for Sediment-Related Indices. State of California North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected in the mainstem of Freshwater Creek @ Howard Heights Bridge at site FTR. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Continuous SSC data were collected from 2003-2008, and SEVs were calculated for the winter season from December 1 to April 30. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | A suspended sediment and turbidity monitoring QAPP was submitted along with standard operating procedures. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Salmon Forever Sediment Data Package For: 2012 California Integrated Report - Surface Water Quality Assessment and List of Impaired Waters [Clean Water Act Sections 305(b) and 303(d)]. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 31623 | ||||
Pollutant: | Turbidity | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | At the present time, natural background turbidity levels have not been determined for this watershed, and exceedence probabilities (the turbidity, associated with flow, that is exceeded X% of the time) have not been calculated. Thus, there is currently no appropriate evaluation guideline for this watershed, and no way to determine whether the objective is being exceeded. | ||||
Data Reference: | Salmon Forever Sediment Data Package For: 2012 California Integrated Report - Surface Water Quality Assessment and List of Impaired Waters [Clean Water Act Sections 305(b) and 303(d)]. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water Quality Control Plan, North Coast Region (NCRWQCB 2011): Turbidity shall not be increased more than 20 percent above naturally occurring background levels. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the North Coast Region | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected in the mainstem of Freshwater Creek @ Howard Heights Bridge at site HHB. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Turbidity data were collected from 2005-2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | A suspended sediment and turbidity monitoring QAPP was submitted along with standard operating procedures. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Salmon Forever Sediment Data Package For: 2012 California Integrated Report - Surface Water Quality Assessment and List of Impaired Waters [Clean Water Act Sections 305(b) and 303(d)]. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 31622 | ||||
Pollutant: | Turbidity | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | At the present time, natural background turbidity levels have not been determined for this watershed, and exceedence probabilities (the turbidity, associated with flow, that is exceeded X% of the time) have not been calculated. Thus, there is currently no appropriate evaluation guideline for this watershed, and no way to determine whether the objective is being exceeded. | ||||
Data Reference: | Salmon Forever Sediment Data Package For: 2012 California Integrated Report - Surface Water Quality Assessment and List of Impaired Waters [Clean Water Act Sections 305(b) and 303(d)]. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water Quality Control Plan, North Coast Region (NCRWQCB 2011): Turbidity shall not be increased more than 20 percent above naturally occurring background levels. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the North Coast Region | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected in the mainstem of Freshwater Creek @ Terry Roelofs' house (FTR). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Near-continuous turbidity data were collected from 2003-2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | A suspended sediment and turbidity monitoring QAPP was submitted along with standard operating procedures. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Salmon Forever Sediment Data Package For: 2012 California Integrated Report - Surface Water Quality Assessment and List of Impaired Waters [Clean Water Act Sections 305(b) and 303(d)]. | ||||
DECISION ID |
24382 |
Region 1 |
Eureka Plain HU, Freshwater Creek |
||
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)(2010) |
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. No new data were assessed during the current Integrated Report cycle, however it should be noted that the use rating and decision language have been altered to reflect that there are insufficient data available to make a listing determination.
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) Zero of the 4 samples exceeded the aluminum objective, and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met, as a minimum of either (A) 16 samples, or (B) greater than or equal 2 exceedances of the objective with less than 16 samples is needed for application of Table 3.1 (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 it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Staff 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. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 25370 | ||||
Pollutant: | Aluminum | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | None of the 4 aluminum samples collected from Freshwater 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 upper Freshwater Creek (SWAMP Station ID 110FRESUP). Samples were collected from well-mixed flows in glides or riffles. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected during 4 site visits from February 2002 to June 2002 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 |
28171 |
Region 1 |
Eureka Plain HU, Freshwater Creek |
||
Pollutant: | Nitrogen, ammonia (Total Ammonia) |
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)(2010) |
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. No new data were assessed during the current Integrated Report cycle, however it should be noted that the use rating and decision language have been altered to reflect that there are insufficient data available to make a listing determination. Also, the pollutant name was changed from "Ammonia as Nitrogen" to "Nitrogen, ammonia (Total Ammonia)".
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) Zero of the 4 samples exceed the evaluation guideline, and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met, as a minimum of either (A) 16 samples, or (B) greater than or equal 2 exceedances of the objective with less than 16 samples is needed for application of Table 3.1 (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 it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Staff 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. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 26308 | ||||
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: | 4 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | None of the 4 ammonia as nitrogen samples collected from Freshwater 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 upper Freshwater Creek (SWAMP Station ID 110FRESUP). Samples were collected from well-mixed flows in glides or riffles. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected during 4 site visits from February 2002 to June 2002 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 |
22619 |
Region 1 |
Eureka Plain HU, Freshwater 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: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2010) |
Revision Status | Original |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Regional Water Board Conclusion:
This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous Integrated Report cycle. No new information was reviewed for this current Integrated Report cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows: 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 40 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 40 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: | No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle. |
State Board Staff 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. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 21520 | ||||
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: | 40 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | None of the 40 metal samples collected in Freshwater Creek exceed the objectives. There were 4 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 upper Freshwater Creek (SWAMP Station ID 110FRESUP). Samples were collected from well-mixed flows in glides or riffles. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected during 4 site visits from February 2002 to June 2002 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 |
24454 |
Region 1 |
Eureka Plain HU, Freshwater Creek |
||
Pollutant: | Chloride |
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)(2010) |
Revision Status | Original |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Regional Water Board conclusion: This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) List in a previous Integrated Report cycle. No new information was reviewed for this current Integrated Report cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:
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 4 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 4 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: | No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle. |
State Board Staff 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. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 25424 | ||||
Pollutant: | Chloride | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Not Recorded | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | None of the 4 chloride samples collected in Freshwater 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 upper Freshwater Creek (SWAMP Station ID 110FRESUP). Samples were collected from well-mixed flows in glides or riffles. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected during 4 site visits from February 2002 to June 2002 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 |
26662 |
Region 1 |
Eureka Plain HU, Freshwater Creek |
||
Pollutant: | Specific Conductivity |
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)(2010) |
Revision Status | Original |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Regional Water Board Conclusion:
This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous Integrated Report cycle. No new information was reviewed for this current Integrated Report cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows: 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 4 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 4 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: | No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle. |
State Board Staff 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. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 21236 | ||||
Pollutant: | Specific Conductivity | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | None of the 4 specific conductivity grab samples collected from Freshwater 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 22 CCR 64449: The recommended secondary Maximum Containment 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 upper Freshwater Creek (SWAMP Station ID 110FRESUP). Samples were collected from well-mixed flows in glides or riffles. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected during 4 site visits from February 2002 to June 2002 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 |
26663 |
Region 1 |
Eureka Plain HU, Freshwater Creek |
||
Pollutant: | Sulfates |
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)(2010) |
Revision Status | Original |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Regional Water Board conclusion: This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) List in a previous Integrated Report cycle. No new information was reviewed for this current Integrated Report cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:
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 4 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 4 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: | No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle. |
State Board Staff 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. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 25533 | ||||
Pollutant: | Sulfates | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Not Recorded | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | None of the 4 sulfate samples collected in Freshwater 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 upper Freshwater Creek (SWAMP Station ID 110FRESUP). Samples were collected from well-mixed flows in glides or riffles. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected during 4 site visits from February 2002 to June 2002 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) | ||||