| Water Body Name: | Mendocino Coast HU, Noyo River HA, Noyo River |
| Water Body ID: | CAR1132004019980708170110 |
| Water Body Type: | River & Stream |
DECISION ID |
76707 |
Region 1 |
Mendocino Coast HU, Noyo River HA, Noyo River |
||
| Pollutant: | Ammonia |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | Note that the pollutant name was changed from "Nitrogen, Ammonia (Total Ammonia)" to "Ammonia".
Regional Board Conclusion: This 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 in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. No new data were assessed during the current Integrated Report cycle, however it should be noted that the use rating and decision language have been altered to reflect that there are insufficient data available to make a listing determination. Also, the pollutant name was changed from "Ammonia as Nitrogen" to "Nitrogen, ammonia (Total Ammonia)". Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category (i.e., sufficient justification to not list). This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: (1) The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of Section 6.1.4 of the Policy. (2) The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of Section 6.1.5 of the Policy. (3) Zero of the 2 samples exceed the evaluation guideline, and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met, as a minimum of either (A) 16 samples, or (B) greater than or equal 2 exceedances of the objective with less than 16 samples is needed for application of Table 3.1 (4) Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | 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: | |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 26322 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Ammonia as Nitrogen | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Aquatic Life Use: | Fish Migration | Fish Spawning | Freshwater Replenishment | Preservation of Rare & Endangered Species | Wildlife Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | None of the 2 ammonia as nitrogen samples collected from the Noyo 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): 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 Noyo River at the Hayshed Siding Gage (SWAMP Station ID 113NOYHAY). Samples were collected from well-mixed flows in glides or riffles. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected as grab samples during 2 site visits from May to June 2001. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | There are no known environmental conditions (e.g., seasonality, land use practices, fire events, storms, etc.) that are related to these data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | Quality control was conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (Puckett 2002). | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
74055 |
Region 1 |
Mendocino Coast HU, Noyo River HA, Noyo River |
||
| Pollutant: | Chloride |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | Regional Water Board conclusion: This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) List in a previous Integrated Report cycle. No new information was reviewed for this current Integrated Report cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:
This pollutant is being considered for placement on the Section 303(d) List under Section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under Section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the 2 chloride samples exceed the evaluation guideline. The weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient information available to determine if it is appropriate to place this water segment-pollutant combination on the Section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. Per Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy, a minimum of 5 samples are needed, and only 2 samples are available. This conclusion is also based on the staff findings that: (1) The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of Section 6.1.4 of the Policy. (2) Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | 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: | |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 25438 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Chloride | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Not Recorded | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | None of the 2 chloride samples collected in the Noyo 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 Noyo River at the Hayshed Siding Gage (SWAMP Station ID 113NOYHAY). Samples were collected from well-mixed flows in glides or riffles. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected as grab samples during 2 site visits from May to June 2001. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | There are no known environmental conditions (e.g., seasonality, land use practices, fire events, storms, etc.) that are related to these data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | Quality control was conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (SWAMP 2002). | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
70863 |
Region 1 |
Mendocino Coast HU, Noyo River HA, Noyo River |
||
| 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 Section 303(d) List under Section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under Section 3.1, a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the 2 lead 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 2 samples exceeded the lead objective, and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met, as a minimum of either (A) 16 samples, or (B) greater than or equal 2 exceedances of the objective with less than 16 samples is needed for application of Table 3.1. (4) Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | This region was not assessed this cycle. All decisions have been carried over from the previous cycle and remain the same. |
| 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: | 21536 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Lead | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | None of the 2 lead samples collected in the Noyo River exceed the objectives. The samples were collected as part of the Surface Water Ambient Water Monitoring Program (SWAMP). The data are found in the SWAMP Summary Report for the North Coast Region for Years 2000-2006 (NCRWQCB 2008). | ||||
| Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). Summary Report for the North Coast Region (RWQCB-1) for years 2000-2006. North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board. March 2008 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Per the Basin Plan (NCRWQCB 2007): Lead objective is 0.05 mg/L. | ||||
| 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 Noyo River at the Hayshed Siding Gage (SWAMP Station ID 113NOYHAY). Samples were collected from well-mixed flows in glides or riffles. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected as grab samples during 2 site visits from May to June 2001. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | There are no known environmental conditions (e.g., seasonality, land use practices, fire events, storms, etc.) that are related to these data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | Quality control was conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (SWAMP 2002). | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
72523 |
Region 1 |
Mendocino Coast HU, Noyo River HA, Noyo River |
||
| 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: | Regional Water Board Conclusion:
This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous Integrated Report cycle. No new information was reviewed for this current Integrated Report cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows: This pollutant is being considered for placement on the Section 303(d) list under Section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under Section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Two of the 2 specific conductivity samples exceed the water quality objective. The weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient information available to determine if it is appropriate to place this water segment-pollutant combination on the Section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. Per Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy, a minimum of 5 samples are needed, and only 2 samples are available. This conclusion is also based on the staff findings that: (1) The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of Section 6.1.4 of the Policy. (2) Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | 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: | |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 21313 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Specific Conductivity | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 2 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Two of the 2 specific conductivity grab samples collected from the Noyo 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 90% upper limit specific conductance objective at 77 F is 185 micromhos (or mS/cm2). The 50% upper limit specific conductance objective at 77 F is 150 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 Noyo River at the Hayshed Siding Gage (SWAMP Station ID 113NOYHAY). Samples were collected from well-mixed flows in glides or riffles. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected as grab samples during 2 site visits from May to June 2001. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | There are no known environmental conditions (e.g., seasonality, land use practices, fire events, storms, etc.) that are related to these data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | Quality control was conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (Puckett 2002). | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
73066 |
Region 1 |
Mendocino Coast HU, Noyo River HA, Noyo River |
||
| Pollutant: | Sulfates |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | Regional Water Board conclusion: This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) List in a previous Integrated Report cycle. No new information was reviewed for this current Integrated Report cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:
This pollutant is being considered for placement on the Section 303(d) List under Section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under Section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the 2 sulfate samples exceed the evaluation guideline. The weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient information available to determine if it is appropriate to place this water segment-pollutant combination on the Section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. Per Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy, a minimum of 5 samples are needed, and only 2 samples are available. This conclusion is also based on the staff findings that: (1) The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of Section 6.1.4 of the Policy. (2) Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | This region was not assessed this cycle. All decisions have been carried over from the previous cycle and remain the same. |
| 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: | 25547 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Sulfates | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Not Recorded | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | None of the 2 sulfate samples collected in the Noyo 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 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 Noyo River at the Hayshed Siding Gage (SWAMP Station ID 113NOYHAY). Samples were collected from well-mixed flows in glides or riffles. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected as grab samples during 2 site visits from May to June 2001. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | There are no known environmental conditions (e.g., seasonality, land use practices, fire events, storms, etc.) that are related to these data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | Quality control was conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (SWAMP 2002). | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
68269 |
Region 1 |
Mendocino Coast HU, Noyo River HA, Noyo River |
||
| Pollutant: | Temperature, water |
| 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: | Flow Alteration/Regulation/Modification | Removal of Riparian Vegetation |
| Expected TMDL Completion Date: | 2019 |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | Regional Water Board Conclusion:
This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) List in a previous Integrated Report cycle. No new information was reviewed for this current Integrated Report cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows: This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess temperature consistent with Listing Policy section 6.1.5.9. This decision is applicable to the area covering the sampling locations located on the mainstem Noyo River at the confluence of Duffy Gulch downstream to the confluence of Hayshed Gulch; down the South Fork Noyo River to the confluence of Kass Creek; on Hayshed Gulch at station NOY8; on Kass Creek at station NOY7; on the Little North Fork Noyo River at station NOY5; and Duffy Gulch at station NOY2. A large number of samples exceed the water quality objective. When compared to the 14.8°C threshold, were 3,376 exceedances out of 7,743 samples taken over all the sampling years at this location. When compared to the 17°C threshold there were 1,185 exceedances found out of all of the data. 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 section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. There were 3,376 of 7,743 samples that exceeded the 14.8 degree evaluation guideline used to interpret the water quality objective and this exceeds the allowable frequency calculated from the equation in Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | This region was not assessed this cycle. All decisions have been carried over from the previous cycle and remain the same. |
| 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: | 1690 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Temperature, water | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 7743 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 3376 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | When compared to the 14.8°C Coho threshold, there were 3,376 exceedances out of 7,743 total samples taken over all the sampling years at the sampling locations on the Noyo River. When compared to the 17°C threshold there were 1,185 exceedances found out of all of the data (Hawthorne Timber Co., 2003). | ||||
| Data Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: Temperature objectives for COLD interstate waters, WARM interstate waters, and Enclosed Bays and Estuaries are as specified in the "Water Quality Control Plan for Control of Temperature in the Coastal and Interstate Waters and Enclosed Bays of California" including any revisions thereto. A copy of this plan is included verbatim in the Appendix Section of the Regional Board's Basin Plan. In addition, the following temperature objectives apply to surface waters: The natural receiving water temperature of intrastate waters shall not be altered unless it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Regional Water Board that such alteration in temperature does not adversely affect beneficial uses. At no time or place shall the temperature of any COLD water be increased by more than 5°F above natural receiving water temperature. At no time or place shall the temperature of WARM intrastate waters be increased more than 5°F above natural receiving water temperature. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The guideline used was from Sullivan et al. (2000) Published Temperature Thresholds-Peer Reviewed Literature which includes reviewed sub-lethal and acute temperature thresholds from a wide range of studies, incorporating information from laboratory-based research, field observations, and risk assessment approaches. This report calculated the 7-day mean (maximum value of the 7-day moving average of the daily mean temperature) upper threshold criterion for Coho salmon as 14.8°C and for steelhead trout as 17.0°C. The risk assessment approach used by Sullivan et al. (2000) suggests that an upper threshold for the 7-day average of 14.8°C for Coho and 17.0°C for steelhead will reduce average growth 10% from optimum. | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | The sampling locations: NOY8 was on Hayshed Gulch near the confluence to the main stem Noyo River (MNR), NOY9 was at the confluence of Hayshed Gulch and the MNR, NOY12 was at the confluence of the main stem and S.F. Noyo River (SFNR), NOY7 was on Kass Creek near the confluence to the SFNR, NOY5 was on the Little N.F. Noyo River (LNFNR), NOY4 was on the MNR, just upstream of the confluence with the LNFNR, NOY13 and NOY14 are on the MNR upstream of NOY4, NOY2 is on Duffy Gulch just upstream of the confluence with the MNR, and NOY11 is on the MNR just upstream of the confluence with Duffy Gulch.
In summary, the areas of the Noyo River watershed covered by these sample sites are:----The Noyo River mainstem from the confluence of Duffy Gulch downstream to the confluence with Hayshed Gulch;----The South Fork Noyo River mainstem from the confluence of Kass Creek downstream to the confluence with Noyo River mainstem; and ----The Little North Fork Noyo River, Duffy Gulch, and Kass Creek tributaries. Hobo-Temps were placed in the pools near the bottom and towards the deepest portion to record the in-stream temperatures. In stream and riparian measurements were taken at all monitoring locations. |
||||
| Temporal Representation: | There were samples taken in 1994, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, and 2003. Water temperature data were recorded at ninety-minute intervals, generally from June until Mid-October. Stream temperatures were measured continuously with temperature data loggers (Onset Computer Corp. model HOBO-Temp and OST temperature loggers) in Class 1 streams throughout the property from 1994 to 2003. Hobo-temps allowed uninterrupted data collection to occur throughout the critical summer period. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | QA/QC Information Summary was submitted. Installation of the temperature data logger (Onset Computer Corp. model HOBO-Temp and OST temperature loggers in Class 1 streams throughout the property devices occurred one day before the first day logged on the continuous temperature monitoring figures. This was done to allow the data loggers to reach equilibrium with the in stream temperature regimes and to capture complete daily cycles. No information on equipment calibration, standard operating procedures or data protocols were included with the submittal. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
70283 |
Region 1 |
Mendocino Coast HU, Noyo River HA, Noyo River |
||
| 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)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Sources: | Flow Alteration/Regulation/Modification | Nonpoint Source | Removal of Riparian Vegetation | Silviculture |
| TMDL Name: | Noyo River Sediment |
| TMDL Project Code: | 104 |
| Date TMDL Approved by USEPA: | 12/16/1999 |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | Regional Water Board Conclusion:
This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) List in a previous Integrated Report cycle. No new information was reviewed for this current Integrated Report cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows: This pollutant is being considered for 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 U.S. EPA established the Noyo River TMDL for Sediment 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: | This region was not assessed this cycle. All decisions have been carried over from the previous cycle and remain the same. |
| 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: | 1691 | ||||
| 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): | |||||