| Water Body Name: | Eureka Plain HU, Mcdaniel Slough |
| Water Body ID: | CAR1100005219990617094056 |
| Water Body Type: | River & Stream |
DECISION ID |
161533 |
Region 1 |
Eureka Plain HU, Mcdaniel Slough |
||
| Pollutant: | Indicator Bacteria |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
| Revision Status | Revised |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | The State Water Board’s Water Quality Control Plan for Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays, and Estuaries of California (the “ISWEBE Plan”) was adopted on August 7, 2018, and contains bacteria water quality objectives applicable to the REC-1 beneficial use. This has resulted in a change from assessing fecal coliform to assessing E. coli in fresh water and Enterococcus in saline water. Fecal coliform lines of evidence used in previous REC-1 beneficial use indicator bacteria decisions in the North Coast Region are not included in the 2026 Integrated Report assessment. In accordance with section 6.1.5.3 of the Listing Policy, data should be representative of the critical timing that the pollutant is expected to impact the waterbody. Lacking constant inputs, indicator bacteria do not persist in the environment for a long period and effects are of relatively short duration. As a result, the historic levels of E. coli in the waterbody may be a poor indicator of current risks to human health, particularly when more recent data are available to sufficiently assess the water quality standard. Historic lines of evidence for data collected prior to October 21, 2012 were evaluated pursuant to these considerations and were not used to assess water quality standards attainment because they do not meet the temporal representation requirements of section 6.1.5.3 of the Listing Policy. Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. No geometric means are available for this assessment. When no geometric means are available, statistical threshold values are applied. MCDANIEL SLOUGH has one LOE (161533) and 2 of 4 samples exceed the E. coli STV objective and this is insufficient information to apply Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy. |
| 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 the available data and information, SWRCB 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. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 321866 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Escherichia coli (E. coli) | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | STV | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Water Contact Recreation | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 2 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PATHOGEN MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Coastal Pathogen TMDL data for Eureka Plain HU, Mcdaniel Slough to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 2 of the 4 samples exceeded the Statistical Threshold Value (STV) water quality threshold for E. coli. The STV is based on a 10% exceedance rate that is calculated monthly. | ||||
| Data Reference: | WQ from the RWQCB1 TMDL for the 2026 Integrated Report in Region 1 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The bacteria water quality objective to protect the REC-1 beneficial use where the salinity is less than 1 parts per thousand 95 percent or more of the time applies a statistical threshold value to E. coli of 320 cfu/100 mL, not to be exceeded by more than 10 percent of samples within a calendar month (ISWEBE 2018). | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays, and Estuaries Plan. Part 1: Trash Provisions; Part 2: Tribal Subsistence Beneficial Uses and Mercury Provisions; Part 3: Bacteria Provisions and Variance Policy | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site(s), station(s): 110MD3750 (McDaniel Slough at Q Street). | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the days of 2016-12-13 and 2018-01-09 . | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | QAPP for RWQCB1_RussianRiver | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board - QA Doc (2015) - RWQCB1 Russian River TMDL - 402682 | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board - QA Doc (2015) - RWQCB1 Russian River TMDL - 402683 | ||||
DECISION ID |
79182 |
Region 1 |
Eureka Plain HU, Mcdaniel Slough |
||
| Pollutant: | Chlorpyrifos |
| 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: | Regional Board Conclusion:
The pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle. No new information was reviewed for this current assessment 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 to assess protection of the cold freshwater habitat (COLD) beneficial use. 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) The datum in LOE 40844 evaluating the COLD beneficial use was non-detect the method detection limit was above the evaluation guideline. Thus, per the Listing Policy the datum was not used in this assessment. Therefore, there are no data available to assess against protection of the COLD beneficial use. (4) Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | This is a decision 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: | 40844 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Chlorpyrifos | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | One sample result was not used in the assessment because the laboratory method detection limit was above the guideline and the result was non-detect. Therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Statewide Project Urban Pyrethroid Status Monitoring | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water Quality Control Plan, North Coast Region (NCRWQCB 2011): No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the North Coast Region | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | There is no chlorpyrifos evaluation guideline specific to "sediment, interstitial water" (pore water). The following evaluation guideline was used to evaluate an exceedance in water quality standards: the freshwater criterion continuous concentration to protect aquatic organisms is 0.015 ug/L (Siepmann and Finlayson 2000, with minor corrections to significant figures as described in Beaulaurier et al., 2005). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Water quality criteria for diazinon and chlorpyrifos. Administrative Report 00-3. Rancho Cordova, CA: Pesticide Investigations Unit, Office of Spills and Response. CA Department of Fish and Game (with minor corrections to significant figures as described in Beaulaurier et al., 2005). | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Eureka Plain HU, Mcdaniel Slough was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Jane's Ck Meadows - 110SUP089] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 11/14/2006. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
79235 |
Region 1 |
Eureka Plain HU, Mcdaniel Slough |
||
| Pollutant: | Diazinon |
| 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 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 to assess protection of the cold freshwater habitat (COLD) beneficial use.
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 one sediment sample exceeds the COLD criteria, 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: | 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: | 40846 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Diazinon | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Eureka Plain HU, Mcdaniel Slough to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Diazinon. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Statewide Project Urban Pyrethroid Status Monitoring | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water Quality Control Plan, North Coast Region (NCRWQCB 2011): No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the North Coast Region | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | There is no diazinon evaluation guideline specific to "sediment, interstitial water" (pore water). The following evaluation guideline was used to evaluate an exceedance in water quality standards: the freshwater chronic value for diazinon is 0.1 ug/L, expressed as a continuous concentration (Finlayson, 2004). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Water quality for diazinon. Memorandum to J. Karkoski, Central Valley RWQCB. Rancho Cordova, CA: Pesticide Investigation Unit, CA Department of Fish and Game | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Eureka Plain HU, Mcdaniel Slough was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Jane's Ck Meadows - 110SUP089] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 11/14/2006. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||