Water Body Name: | Eel River HU, Van Duzen River HA |
Water Body ID: | CAR1112101219990602104416 |
Water Body Type: | River & Stream |
DECISION ID |
12334 |
Region 1 |
Eel River HU, Van Duzen River HA |
||
Pollutant: | Aluminum |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the Section 303(d) List under Section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under Section 3.1, a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the 17 aluminum samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category (i.e., sufficient justification to not list). This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: (1) The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of Section 6.1.4 of the Policy. (2) The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of Section 6.1.5 of the Policy. (3) None of the 17 samples exceeded the aluminum objective, and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. (4) Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, North Coast RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the Section 303(d) List because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
USEPA Action (if applicable): | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 25380 | ||||
Pollutant: | Aluminum | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 17 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | None of the 17 aluminum samples collected from the Van Duzen River exceed the objective. The samples were collected as part of the Surface Water Ambient Water Monitoring Program (SWAMP). The data are found in the SWAMP Summary Report for the North Coast Region for Years 2000-2006 (NCRWQCB 2008). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). Summary Report for the North Coast Region (RWQCB-1) for years 2000-2006. North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board. March 2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Per the Basin Plan (NCRWQCB 2007): The Maximum Contaminant Level for aluminum is 1.0 mg/l (1,000 ug/L). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - North Coast Region (Region 1) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the Van Duzen River Watershed at 4 locations as follows: (1) the mainstem Van Duzen River near Dinsmore (SWAMP Station ID 111VANDIN), (2) the mainstem Van Duzen River downstream of Yager Creek (SWAMP Station ID 111VANBRG), (3) the mainstem Van Duzen River at Bridgeville (SWAMP Station ID 111VAN101), and (4) Yager Creek at Carlotta (SWAMP Station ID 111YAGCAR). Samples were collected from well-mixed flows in glides or riffles. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | At the Dinsmore site, samples were collected from 5 site visits from February to June 2002. At the site downstream of Yager Creek, samples were collected from 5 site visits from February to June 2002. At the Bridgeville site, samples were collected from 2 site visits from May to June 2002. At the Yager Creek site, samples were collected from 5 site visits from February to June 2002. | ||||
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 |
15746 |
Region 1 |
Eel River HU, Van Duzen River HA |
||
Pollutant: | Ammonia as Nitrogen |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the Section 303(d) List under Section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under Section 3.1, a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the 17 ammonia as nitrogen samples exceed the objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the Section 303(d) List in the Water Quality Limited Segments category (i.e., sufficient justification to not list). This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: (1) The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of Section 6.1.4 of the Policy. (2) The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of Section 6.1.5 of the Policy. (3) None of the 17 samples exceed the water quality objective, and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. (4) Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, North Coast Regional Water Board staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the Section 303(d) List because applicable water quality standards are being attained. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
USEPA Action (if applicable): | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 26317 | ||||
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 | Warm Freshwater Habitat | Wildlife Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 17 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | None of the 17 ammonia as nitrogen samples collected from the Van Duzen River Watershed exceed the objective. The samples were collected as part of the Surface Water Ambient Water Monitoring Program (SWAMP). The data are found in the SWAMP Summary Report for the North Coast Region for Years 2000-2006 (NCRWQCB 2008). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). Summary Report for the North Coast Region (RWQCB-1) for years 2000-2006. North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board. March 2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Per the Basin Plan (NCRWQCB 2007): All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - North Coast Region (Region 1) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | Per the National Recommended Water Quality Criteria (USEPA 2006): The 1-hour average concentration (acute criterion or CMC) of total ammonia nitrogen (in mg N/L) for freshwater where salmonid fish are present, which is not to be exceeded more than once every three years on average, is calculated using the following equation: CMC=0.275/(1+10^(7.204 - pH)) + 39.0/(1+10^(pH - 7.204)). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Office of Science and Technology | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the Van Duzen River Watershed at 4 locations as follows: (1) the mainstem Van Duzen River near Dinsmore (SWAMP Station ID 111VANDIN), (2) the mainstem Van Duzen River downstream of Yager Creek (SWAMP Station ID 111VANBRG), (3) the mainstem Van Duzen River at Bridgeville (SWAMP Station ID 111VAN101), and (4) Yager Creek at Carlotta (SWAMP Station ID 111YAGCAR). Samples were collected from well-mixed flows in glides or riffles. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | At the Dinsmore site, samples were collected from 5 site visits from February to June 2002. At the site downstream of Yager Creek, samples were collected from 5 site visits from February to June 2002. At the Bridgeville site, samples were collected from 2 site visits from May to June 2002. At the Yager Creek site, samples were collected from 5 site visits from February to June 2002. | ||||
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 |
10656 |
Region 1 |
Eel River HU, Van Duzen River HA |
||
Pollutant: | Arsenic | Cadmium | Chromium (total) | Copper | Lead | Mercury | Nickel | Selenium | Silver | Zinc |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the Section 303(d) List under Section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under Section 3.1, a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the 168 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 168 samples exceeded the metal objectives, and this does not exceed the allowable frequency of 15 per the binomial distribution described in Section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. (4) Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, North Coast RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the Section 303(d) List because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
USEPA Action (if applicable): | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 21529 | ||||
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: | 168 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | None of the 168 metal samples collected in the Van Duzen River exceed the objectives. For each of the 10 metal parameters, there were 5 samples each collected at the Dinsmore site, 5 samples each collected at the Van Duzen River site downstream of Yager Creek, 4 to 5 samples each collected at the Bridgeville site, and 2 samples each collected from Yager Creek. The samples were collected as part of the Surface Water Ambient Water Monitoring Program (SWAMP). The data are found in the SWAMP Summary Report for the North Coast Region for Years 2000-2006 (NCRWQCB 2008). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). Summary Report for the North Coast Region (RWQCB-1) for years 2000-2006. North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board. March 2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Per the Basin Plan (NCRWQCB 2007): Arsenic objective is 0.05 mg/L. Cadmium objective is 0.01 mg/L. Chromium objective is 0.05 mg/L. Lead objective is 0.05 mg/L. Mercury objective is 0.002 mg/L. Selenium objective is 0.01 mg/L. Silver objective is 0.05 mg/L. Per 22 CCR 64431: Nickel maximum contaminant level is 0.1 mg/L. Per 22 CCR 64449: Copper secondary maximum contaminant level is 1.0 mg/L. Zinc secondary maximum contaminant level is 5.0 mg/L. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - North Coast Region (Region 1) | ||||
Title 22. Division 4. Chapter 15. Sections 64400 et seq. California Code of Regulations | |||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the Van Duzen River Watershed at 4 locations as follows: (1) the mainstem Van Duzen River near Dinsmore (SWAMP Station ID 111VANDIN), (2) the mainstem Van Duzen River downstream of Yager Creek (SWAMP Station ID 111VANBRG), (3) the mainstem Van Duzen River at Bridgeville (SWAMP Station ID 111VAN101), and (4) Yager Creek at Carlotta (SWAMP Station ID 111YAGCAR). Samples were collected from well-mixed flows in glides or riffles. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | At the Dinsmore site, samples were collected from 5 site visits from February to June 2002. At the site downstream of Yager Creek, samples were collected from 5 site visits from February to June 2002. At the Bridgeville site, samples were collected from 2 site visits from May to June 2002. At the Yager Creek site, samples were collected from 5 site visits from February to June 2002. | ||||
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 |
12455 |
Region 1 |
Eel River HU, Van Duzen River HA |
||
Pollutant: | Chloride |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the Section 303(d) List under Section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under Section 3.2, a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the 17 chloride samples exceed the evaluation guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category (i.e., sufficient justification to not list). This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: (1) The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of Section 6.1.4 of the Policy. (2) The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of Section 6.1.5 of the Policy. (3) None of the 17 samples exceeded the chloride evaluation guideline used to interpret the water quality objective, and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy. (4) Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, North Coast RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the Section 303(d) List because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
USEPA Action (if applicable): | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 25433 | ||||
Pollutant: | Chloride | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Not Recorded | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 17 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | None of the 17 chloride samples collected in the Van Duzen River exceed the evaluation guideline. The samples were collected as part of the Surface Water Ambient Water Monitoring Program (SWAMP). The data are found in the SWAMP Summary Report for the North Coast Region for Years 2000-2006 (NCRWQCB 2008). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). Summary Report for the North Coast Region (RWQCB-1) for years 2000-2006. North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board. March 2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Per the Basin Plan (NCRWQCB 2007): Waters shall not contain taste- or odor-producing substances in concentrations that impart undesirable tastes or odors to fish flesh or other edible products of aquatic origin, or that cause nuisance or adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - North Coast Region (Region 1) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | Per 22 CCR 64449: The recommended Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level for chloride is 250 mg/L. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Title 22. Division 4. Chapter 15. Sections 64400 et seq. California Code of Regulations | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the Van Duzen River Watershed at 4 locations as follows: (1) the mainstem Van Duzen River near Dinsmore (SWAMP Station ID 111VANDIN), (2) the mainstem Van Duzen River downstream of Yager Creek (SWAMP Station ID 111VANBRG), (3) the mainstem Van Duzen River at Bridgeville (SWAMP Station ID 111VAN101), and (4) Yager Creek at Carlotta (SWAMP Station ID 111YAGCAR). Samples were collected from well-mixed flows in glides or riffles. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | At the Dinsmore site, samples were collected from 5 site visits from February to June 2002. At the site downstream of Yager Creek, samples were collected from 5 site visits from February to June 2002. At the Bridgeville site, samples were collected from 2 site visits from May to June 2002. At the Yager Creek site, samples were collected from 5 site visits from February to June 2002. | ||||
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 |
10555 |
Region 1 |
Eel River HU, Van Duzen River HA |
||
Pollutant: | Specific Conductivity |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the Section 303(d) List under Section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under Section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Two of the 17 specific conductivity samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the Section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category (i.e., sufficient justification to not list). This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: (1) The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of Section 6.1.4 of the Policy. (2) The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of Section 6.1.5 of the Policy. (3) Two of the 17 samples exceed the specific conductivity objective, and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy. (4) Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, North Coast RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the Section 303(d) List because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
USEPA Action (if applicable): | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 21302 | ||||
Pollutant: | Specific Conductivity | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 17 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 2 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Two of the 17 specific conductivity grab samples collected from the Van Duzen River Watershed exceed the objective. The samples were collected as part of the Surface Water Ambient Water Monitoring Program (SWAMP). The data are found in the SWAMP Summary Report for the North Coast Region for Years 2000-2006 (NCRWQCB 2008). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). Summary Report for the North Coast Region (RWQCB-1) for years 2000-2006. North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board. March 2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Per the Basin Plan (NCRWQCB 2007): The 90% upper limit specific conductance objective at 77 F is 375 micromhos (or mS/cm2). The 50% upper limit specific conductance objective at 77 F is 175 micromhos (or mS/cm2). The 90% and 50% upper limits represent the 90/50 percentile values for a calendar year. 90% or 50% or more of the values must be less than or equal to the upper limit. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - North Coast Region (Region 1) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the Van Duzen River Watershed at 4 locations as follows: (1) the mainstem Van Duzen River near Dinsmore (SWAMP Station ID 111VANDIN), (2) the mainstem Van Duzen River downstream of Yager Creek (SWAMP Station ID 111VANBRG), (3) the mainstem Van Duzen River at Bridgeville (SWAMP Station ID 111VAN101), and (4) Yager Creek at Carlotta (SWAMP Station ID 111YAGCAR). Samples were collected from well-mixed flows in glides or riffles. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | At the Dinsmore site, samples were collected from 5 site visits from February to June 2002. At the site downstream of Yager Creek, samples were collected from 5 site visits from February to June 2002. At the Bridgeville site, samples were collected from 2 site visits from May to June 2002. At the Yager Creek site, samples were collected from 5 site visits from February to June 2002. | ||||
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 |
12525 |
Region 1 |
Eel River HU, Van Duzen River HA |
||
Pollutant: | Sulfates |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the Section 303(d) List under Section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under Section 3.2, a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the 16 sulfate samples exceed the evaluation guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the Section 303(d) List in the Water Quality Limited Segments category (i.e., sufficient justification to not list). This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: (1) The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of Section 6.1.4 of the Policy. (2) The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of Section 6.1.5 of the Policy. (3) None of the 16 samples exceed the sulfate evaluation guideline used to interpret the water quality objective, and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy. (4) Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, North Coast RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the Section 303(d) List because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
USEPA Action (if applicable): | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 25542 | ||||
Pollutant: | Sulfates | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Not Recorded | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 16 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | None of the 16 sulfate samples collected in the Van Duzen River watershed exceed the evaluation guideline. The samples were collected as part of the Surface Water Ambient Water Monitoring Program (SWAMP). The data are found in the 5-Year Monitoring Report (NCRWQCB 2008). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). Summary Report for the North Coast Region (RWQCB-1) for years 2000-2006. North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board. March 2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Per the Basin Plan (NCRWQCB 2007, p. 3-3.00): Waters shall not contain taste- or odor-producing substances in concentrations that impart undesirable tastes or odors to fish flesh or other edible products of aquatic origin, or that cause nuisance or adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - North Coast Region (Region 1) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | Per 22 CCR 64449 (Table 64449-B): The recommended secondary maximum contaminant level for sulfate is 250 mg/L. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Title 22. Division 4. Chapter 15. Sections 64400 et seq. California Code of Regulations | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the Van Duzen River Watershed at 4 locations as follows: (1) the mainstem Van Duzen River near Dinsmore (SWAMP Station ID 111VANDIN), (2) the mainstem Van Duzen River downstream of Yager Creek (SWAMP Station ID 111VANBRG), (3) the mainstem Van Duzen River at Bridgeville (SWAMP Station ID 111VAN101), and (4) Yager Creek at Carlotta (SWAMP Station ID 111YAGCAR). Samples were collected from well-mixed flows in glides or riffles. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | At the Dinsmore site, samples were collected from 5 site visits from February to June 2002. At the site downstream of Yager Creek, samples were collected from 5 site visits from February to June 2002. At the Bridgeville site, samples were collected from 2 site visits from May to June 2002. At the Yager Creek site, samples were collected from 5 site visits from February to June 2002. | ||||
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 |
6923 |
Region 1 |
Eel River HU, Van Duzen River HA |
||
Pollutant: | Sedimentation/Siltation |
Final Listing Decision: | List on 303(d) list (being addressed by USEPA approved TMDL) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | List on 303(d) list (being addressed by USEPA approved TMDL)(2006) |
Revision Status | Original |
Sources: | Channel Erosion | Construction/Land Development | Erosion/Siltation | Habitat Modification | Harvesting, Restoration, Residue Management | Logging Road Construction/Maintenance | Natural Sources | Removal of Riparian Vegetation | Silvicultural Point Sources | Silviculture | Streambank Modification/Destabilization |
TMDL Name: | Van Duzen River Sediment |
TMDL Project Code: | 508 |
Date TMDL Approved by USEPA: | 12/16/1999 |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for listing under Section 2.2 of the Listing Policy. Under this section of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.
The Van Duzen River and Yager Creek Total Maximum Daily Load for Sediment was established by US EPA on December 16, 1999. Based on the readily available information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of placing this water segment-pollutant combination in the Water Quality Limited Segments Being Addressed portion of the section 303(d) list. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | No new data were assessed for 2008. The decision has not changed. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
USEPA Action (if applicable): | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 1677 | ||||
Pollutant: | Sedimentation/Siltation | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Not Specified | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Unspecified--This LOE is a placeholder to support a 303(d) listing decision made prior to 2006. | ||||
Data Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | |||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | |||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | |||||
Temporal Representation: | |||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | QA Info Missing | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||