| Water Body Name: | Humbug Creek (Diggins Creek to Yuba River, South Fork) |
| Water Body ID: | CAR5173203019980814102308 |
| Water Body Type: | River & Stream |
DECISION ID |
77639 |
Region 5 |
Humbug Creek (Diggins Creek to Yuba River, South Fork) |
||
| Pollutant: | Copper |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Sources: | A Source Unknown |
| Expected TMDL Completion Date: | 2027 |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for removal from the CWA section 303(d) List under section 4.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess pollutant. Nine of 23 samples exceed the evaluation guideline. 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 CWA section 303(d) 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. Nine of 23 samples exceed the evaluation guideline and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. 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, 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 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: | 64797 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Copper | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Not Recorded | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 23 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 9 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Nine of the 23 samples exceeded the CTR value of 8.96 ug/L. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data in Yuba: metal, 2000-2007 and conventional, 2000-2010. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Waters shall not contain chemical constituents in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) lists criterion continuous concentrations (expressed as a 4-day average concentration) to protect aquatic life in freshwater. The criterion in freshwater is hardness dependent for each sample and varies based on the ambient hardness during sampling. Section (b)(1) in CTR contains the hardness dependent formula for the metals criterion. If no hardness data were available, a hardness of 100 mg/L was used. | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from station 12 - Humbug Creek. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected on 5/5/01, 3/9/02, 4/13/02, 5/11/02, 6/8/02, 7/13/02, 9/7/02, 10/5/02, 11/2/02, 11/7/02, 12/7/02, 1/4/03, 3/1/03, 3/15/03, 4/5/03, 5/3/2003, 6/7/2003, 8/9/03, 9/6/2003, 10/4/03, 9/11/2004, 10/20/04, and 2/4/06. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Samples were collected and analyzed in accordance with Water Monitoring Quality Assurance Project Plan prepared for the Yuba Watershed Monitoring Committee (Revision 1.3) dated June 30, 2008. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 4234 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Copper | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Not Recorded | ||||
| 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: | Unspecified--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: | Unspecified | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Placeholder reference pre-2006 303(d) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | Unspecified | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Placeholder reference pre-2006 303(d) | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Unspecified | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Unspecified | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Unspecified | ||||
| QAPP Information: | Unspecified | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
74128 |
Region 5 |
Humbug Creek (Diggins Creek to Yuba River, South Fork) |
||
| Pollutant: | Mercury |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Sources: | A Source Unknown |
| Expected TMDL Completion Date: | 2021 |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under sections 4.1 and 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 4.1, a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess pollutant.
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. 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. 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: | This is a decision previously approved by the State Water Resources Control Board and the USEPA. No new data were assessed by the Regional Board for the current cycle. 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. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 4235 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Mercury | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
| Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
| Fraction: | Not Recorded | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Not Specified | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Unspecified--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: | Unspecified | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Placeholder reference pre-2006 303(d) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | Unspecified | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Placeholder reference pre-2006 303(d) | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Unspecified | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Unspecified | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Unspecified | ||||
| QAPP Information: | Unspecified | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
69295 |
Region 5 |
Humbug Creek (Diggins Creek to Yuba River, South Fork) |
||
| Pollutant: | Zinc |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Sources: | A Source Unknown |
| Expected TMDL Completion Date: | 2027 |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for removal from the CWA section 303(d) List under section 4.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess pollutant. Zero of 25 samples exceed the evaluation guideline and the 303(d) listing is based on a placeholder decision (pre-2006 data indicated impairment). 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 CWA section 303(d) 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 25 samples exceed the evaluation guideline and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. 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, 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 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: | 64809 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Zinc | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Not Recorded | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 25 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | None of the 25 samples exceeded the CTR value of 118 ug/L. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data in Yuba: metal, 2000-2007 and conventional, 2000-2010. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Waters shall not contain chemical constituents in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) lists criterion continuous concentrations (expressed as a 4-day average concentration) to protect aquatic life in freshwater. The criterion in freshwater is hardness dependent for each sample and varies based on the ambient hardness during sampling. Section (b)(1) in CTR contains the hardness dependent formula for the metals criterion. If no hardness data were available, a hardness of 100 mg/L was used. | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from station 12 - Humbug Creek. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected on 1/3/01, 3/10/01, 4/7/01, 6/9/01, 7/14/01, 10/6/01, 3/9/02, 4/13/02, 5/11/02, 6/8/02, 7/13/02, 10/5/02, 11/2/02, 11/7/02, 12/7/02, 3/1/03, 3/15/03, 4/5/03, 5/3/2003, 6/7/2003, 9/6/2003, 10/4/03, 10/20/04, and 2/4/06. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Samples were collected and analyzed in accordance with Water Monitoring Quality Assurance Project Plan prepared for the Yuba Watershed Monitoring Committee (Revision 1.3) dated June 30, 2008. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 4237 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Zinc | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Not Recorded | ||||
| 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: | Unspecified--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: | Unspecified | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Placeholder reference pre-2006 303(d) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | Unspecified | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Placeholder reference pre-2006 303(d) | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Unspecified | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Unspecified | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Unspecified | ||||
| QAPP Information: | Unspecified | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
88064 |
Region 5 |
Humbug Creek (Diggins Creek to Yuba River, South Fork) |
||
| Pollutant: | Arsenic |
| 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)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a two line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status.
Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the six samples exceed the COLD water evaluation guideline, one of the six samples exceed the MUN 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 CWA section 303(d) 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 six samples exceed the COLD water evaluation guideline, one of the six samples exceed the MUN water quality objective, and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using 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. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| 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. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 64789 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Arsenic | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Not Recorded | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | One of the six samples exceeded the Water Quality Objective. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data in Yuba: metal, 2000-2007 and conventional, 2000-2010. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Waters shall not contain chemical constituents in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. The CA Department of Health Services maximum contamination level (MCL) thought to be protective of drinking water for arsenic is 10 ug/L. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | MCLs for Regulated Drinking Water Contaminants, California Department of Public Health. | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from station 12 - Humbug Creek. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected on 3/15/03, 5/3/03, 8/9/03, 10/20/04, and 2/4/06. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Samples were collected and analyzed in accordance with Water Monitoring Quality Assurance Project Plan prepared for the Yuba Watershed Monitoring Committee (Revision 1.3) dated June 30, 2008. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 64788 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Arsenic | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Not Recorded | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | None of the samples exceeded the CTR value of 150 ug/L. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data in Yuba: metal, 2000-2007 and conventional, 2000-2010. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Waters shall not contain chemical constituents in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) lists criterion continuous concentrations (expressed as a 4-day average concentration) for dissolved arsenic to protect aquatic life in freshwater. The CTR value for Arsenic is 150 ug/L. | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from station 12 - Humbug Creek. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected on 3/15/03, 5/3/03, 8/9/03, 10/20/04, 2/4/06, and 4/8/06. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Samples were collected and analyzed in accordance with Water Monitoring Quality Assurance Project Plan prepared for the Yuba Watershed Monitoring Committee (Revision 1.3) dated June 30, 2008. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | Samples were collected and analyzed in accordance with Water Monitoring Quality Assurance Project Plan prepared for the Yuba Watershed Monitoring Committee (Revision 1.3) dated June 30, 2008. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
92439 |
Region 5 |
Humbug Creek (Diggins Creek to Yuba River, South Fork) |
||
| Pollutant: | Indicator Bacteria |
| 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)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA 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.
Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Five of 52 water samples exceed the evaluation guideline for E. coli and zero of the 52 samples exceed the evaluation guideline for total coliform. 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 CWA section 303(d) List in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Five of 52 water samples exceed the evaluation guideline for E. coli and zero of the 52 samples exceed the evaluation guideline for total coliform, 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, 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. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 64798 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Escherichia coli (E. coli) | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Water Contact Recreation | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 52 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 5 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Not Specified | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Five of the 52 samples exceeded the E. coli objective. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data in Yuba: metal, 2000-2007 and conventional, 2000-2010. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Waters shall not contain chemical constituents in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Sacramento River and San Joaquin River Basins) | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The E. coli concentration shall not exceed more than 235/100 ml. USEPA Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria - 1986. | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria - 1986. EPA440/5-84-002 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at SYRCL monitoring station 12 Humbug Creek. WBID: CAR5173203019980814102308 The samples were collected at SYRCL monitoring station 12 Humbug Creek. WBID: CAR5173203019980814102308 | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected approximately monthly between 2001 and 2007. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | This data was collected under the Water Monitoring Quality Assurance Project Plan for the Yuba Watershed Council Monitoring Committee. Rev 1.3. qa12 | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
88120 |
Region 5 |
Humbug Creek (Diggins Creek to Yuba River, South Fork) |
||
| Pollutant: | Lead |
| 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)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a two line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status.
Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. One of the one samples exceed the COLD water evaluation guideline, zero of the one samples exceed the MUN 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 CWA section 303(d) 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. One of the one samples exceed the COLD water evaluation guideline, zero of the one samples exceed the MUN water quality objective, and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using 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. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| 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. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 64801 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Lead | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Not Recorded | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | The one sample did not exceed the Water Quality Objective. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data in Yuba: metal, 2000-2007 and conventional, 2000-2010. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Basin Plan Objective for lead for the municipal drinking water Beneficial Use is 15 ug/L. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | MCLs for Regulated Drinking Water Contaminants, California Department of Public Health. | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from station 12 - Humbug Creek. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected on 3/15/03, 5/3/03, 8/9/03, 10/20/04, and 2/4/06. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Samples were collected and analyzed in accordance with Water Monitoring Quality Assurance Project Plan prepared for the Yuba Watershed Monitoring Committee (Revision 1.3) dated June 30, 2008. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 64800 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Lead | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Not Recorded | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | The sample exceeded the CTR value of 3.18 ug/L. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data in Yuba: metal, 2000-2007 and conventional, 2000-2010. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Waters shall not contain chemical constituents in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) lists criterion continuous concentrations (expressed as a 4-day average concentration) to protect aquatic life in freshwater. The criterion in freshwater is hardness dependent for each sample and varies based on the ambient hardness during sampling. Section (b)(1) in CTR contains the hardness dependent formula for the metals criterion. If no hardness data were available, a hardness of 100 mg/L was used. | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from station 12 - Humbug Creek. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The sample was collected on 3/4/2006. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Samples were collected and analyzed in accordance with Water Monitoring Quality Assurance Project Plan prepared for the Yuba Watershed Monitoring Committee (Revision 1.3) dated June 30, 2008. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
92383 |
Region 5 |
Humbug Creek (Diggins Creek to Yuba River, South Fork) |
||
| Pollutant: | Oxygen, Dissolved |
| 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)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA 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. Zero of the 106 samples exceed the Criteria/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 CWA 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. Zero of 106 samples exceeded the Criteria/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, 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. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 59352 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Oxygen, Dissolved | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 106 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | None of the 106 daily averaged samples exceeded the water quality objective for dissolved oxygen in this water body. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data in Yuba: metal, 2000-2007 and conventional, 2000-2010. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | From the Basin Plan, the minimum level for dissolved oxygen is 7 mg/L for waters designated as COLD. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Samples collected at site 12 - Humbug Ck. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Samples collected between 10/30/2000 and 8/7/2010. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | CITIZEN WATER MONITORING QUALITY ASSURANCE PROJECT PLAN FOR THE YUBA WATERSHED MONITORING COMMITTEE (June 30, 2008) | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project for Yuba Watershed Monitoring Committee, Revision 1.3. | ||||
DECISION ID |
100117 |
Region 5 |
Humbug Creek (Diggins Creek to Yuba River, South Fork) |
||
| 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)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA 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. Zero of the 111 samples exceed the Criteria/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 CWA 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. Zero of 111 samples exceeded the Criteria/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, 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. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 59351 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Specific Conductivity | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 111 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | None of the 111 daily averaged samples exceeded the water quality objective for electrical conductivity in this water body. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data in Yuba: metal, 2000-2007 and conventional, 2000-2010. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The secondary MCLs for electrical conductivity provide a range of values including a recommended level (900 uS/cm), upper level (1600 uS/cm) and a short-term level (2200 uS/cm). The 'recommended' level of 900 uS/cm was used as it is intended to be protective of all drinking water uses. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Secondary Maximum Contaminant Levels and Compliance. CCR Title 22 section 64449. | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Samples collected at site 12 - Humbug Ck. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Samples collected between 10/30/2000 and 8/7/2010. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | CITIZEN WATER MONITORING QUALITY ASSURANCE PROJECT PLAN FOR THE YUBA WATERSHED MONITORING COMMITTEE (June 30, 2008) | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project for Yuba Watershed Monitoring Committee, Revision 1.3. | ||||
DECISION ID |
92438 |
Region 5 |
Humbug Creek (Diggins Creek to Yuba River, South Fork) |
||
| 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)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA 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. Zero of the 114 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 CWA 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. Zero of 114 samples exceeded the Evaluation Guideline 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, 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. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 64807 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Temperature, water | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 114 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | None of the 114 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for temperature in this water body (SYRCL, 2010). | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data in Yuba: metal, 2000-2007 and conventional, 2000-2010. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The natural receiving water temperature of intrastate waters shall not be altered unless it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Regional Water Board that such alteration in temperature does not adversely affect beneficial uses. In determining compliance with the water quality objectives for temperature, appropriate averaging periods may be applied provided that beneficial uses will be fully protected (Central Valley Regional Board Basin Plan, Pg. III-8.00, Water Quality Objectives). | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The lethal temperature threshold for Steelhead adult migration and holding and juvenile growth and rearing is 24 degrees Celsius. (Carter, 2008). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Effects of Temperature, Dissolved Oxygen/Total Dissolved Gas, Ammonia, and pH on Salmonids. Implications for California's North Coast TMDLs. California Regional Water Quality Control Board, North Coast Region | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected at the following locations: SYRCL monitoring station 12, Humbug Ck SYRCL monitoring station 53, Humbug Rlf Hill | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected monthly from 10/30/2000 to 8/7/2010. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | CITIZEN WATER MONITORING QUALITY ASSURANCE PROJECT PLAN FOR THE YUBA WATERSHED MONITORING COMMITTEE (June 30, 2008) | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
88065 |
Region 5 |
Humbug Creek (Diggins Creek to Yuba River, South Fork) |
||
| Pollutant: | Chromium |
| Final Listing Decision: | List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Sources: | A Source Unknown |
| Expected TMDL Completion Date: | 2027 |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA 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. Two of the six samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) 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. Two of six samples exceed the water quality objectives and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. A minimum of 16 samples are needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using 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 be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are exceeded and a pollutant contributes to or causes the problem. |
| 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. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 64796 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Chromium | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Not Recorded | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 2 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Two of the six samples exceeded the Water Quality Objective. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data in Yuba: metal, 2000-2007 and conventional, 2000-2010. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Waters shall not contain chemical constituents in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. The CA Department of Health Services maximum contamination level (MCL) thought to be protective of drinking water for chromium, total is 50 ug/L. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Maximum Contaminant Levels for organic and inorganic chemicals. CCR Title 22 | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from station 12 - Humbug Creek. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected on 3/15/03, 5/3/03, 8/9/03, 10/20/04, and 2/4/06. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Samples were collected and analyzed in accordance with Water Monitoring Quality Assurance Project Plan prepared for the Yuba Watershed Monitoring Committee (Revision 1.3) dated June 30, 2008. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
88119 |
Region 5 |
Humbug Creek (Diggins Creek to Yuba River, South Fork) |
||
| Pollutant: | Iron |
| Final Listing Decision: | List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Sources: | A Source Unknown |
| Expected TMDL Completion Date: | 2027 |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA 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. Five of the 11 samples exceed the water Evaluation Guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) 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. Five of 11 samples exceed the water Evaluation Guideline and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are exceeded and a pollutant contributes to or causes the problem. |
| 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. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 64799 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Iron | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 11 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 5 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Five of the 11 samples exceeded the recommended criteria of 1,000 ug/L. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data in Yuba: metal, 2000-2007 and conventional, 2000-2010. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Waters shall not contain chemical constituents in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | National Recommended Water Quality Criteria Continuous Concentrations are intended protect freshwater aquatic organisms from chronic exposures and are expressed as 4-day average concentrations. The recommended criteria for iron is 1,000 ug/L. | ||||
| 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 station 12 - Humbug Creek. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected on 5/3/2003, 6/7/2003, 9/6/2003, 4/3/2004, 1/15/05, 4/9/05, 6/11/05, 2/4/06, 3/4/06, 5/13/06 and 1/6/07. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Samples were collected and analyzed in accordance with Water Monitoring Quality Assurance Project Plan prepared for the Yuba Watershed Monitoring Committee (Revision 1.3) dated June 30, 2008. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
72260 |
Region 5 |
Humbug Creek (Diggins Creek to Yuba River, South Fork) |
||
| Pollutant: | Sedimentation/Siltation |
| Final Listing Decision: | List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Sources: | A Source Unknown |
| Expected TMDL Completion Date: | 2012 |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | 303(d) listing decisions made prior to 2006 were not held in an assessment database. The Regional Boards will update this decision when new data and information become available and are assessed. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | This is a decision previously approved by the State Water Resources Control Board and the USEPA. No new data were assessed by the Regional Board for the current cycle. 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. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 4236 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Sedimentation/Siltation | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Not Recorded | ||||
| 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: | Unspecified--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: | Unspecified | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Placeholder reference pre-2006 303(d) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | Unspecified | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Placeholder reference pre-2006 303(d) | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Unspecified | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Unspecified | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Unspecified | ||||
| QAPP Information: | Unspecified | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
92385 |
Region 5 |
Humbug Creek (Diggins Creek to Yuba River, South Fork) |
||
| Pollutant: | pH |
| Final Listing Decision: | List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Sources: | A Source Unknown |
| Expected TMDL Completion Date: | 2027 |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA 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. 34 of the 108 samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) 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. 34 of 108 samples exceeded the water quality objectives and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are exceeded and a pollutant contributes to or causes the problem. |
| 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. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 59353 | ||||
| Pollutant: | pH | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 108 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 34 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Thirty-four of the 108 daily averaged samples exceeded the water quality objective for pH in this water body (33 were below 6.5, 1 was above 8.5). | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data in Yuba: metal, 2000-2007 and conventional, 2000-2010. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | From the Basin Plan, pH levels should not be lower than 6.5 or higher than 8.5. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Samples collected at site 12 - Humbug Ck. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Samples collected between October, 2000 and August, 2010. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | CITIZEN WATER MONITORING QUALITY ASSURANCE PROJECT PLAN FOR THE YUBA WATERSHED MONITORING COMMITTEE (June 30, 2008) | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project for Yuba Watershed Monitoring Committee, Revision 1.3. | ||||