DOCSLIB.ORG

Environmental Protection Agency § 131.38

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Environmental Protection Agency § 131.2 (5) Where the Regional Administrator 131.21 EPA review and approval of water determines that a tribe meets the re- quality standards. quirements of this section, he or she 131.22 EPA promulgation of water quality shall promptly provide written notifi- standards. cation to the tribe that the tribe is au- Subpart D—Federally Promulgated Water thorized to administer the CWA Sec- Quality Standards tion 303(d) Impaired Water Listing and TMDL Program. Such tribe shall be 131.31 Arizona. considered a ‘‘State’’ for purposes of 131.32 [Reserved] CWA section 303(d) and its imple- 131.33 Idaho. 131.34 Kansas. menting regulations. With respect to 131.35 Colville Confederated Tribes Indian the timing requirement for submittal Reservation. of an authorized tribe’s first list of im- 131.36 Toxics criteria for those states not paired waters pursuant to § 130.7(d)(1), complying with Clean Water Act section the tribe’s first list is due on the next 303(c)(2)(B). listing cycle due date that is at least 24 131.37 California. months from the later of either: 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of (i) The date EPA approves the tribe’s California. TAS application pursuant to this sec- 131.40 Puerto Rico. tion; or 131.41 Bacteriological criteria for those (ii) The date EPA-approved or EPA- states not complying with Clean Water promulgated water quality standards Act section 303(i)(1)(A). become effective for the tribe’s res- 131.42 Antidegradation implementation ervation waters. methods for the Commonwealth of Puer- to Rico. [81 FR 65915, Sept. 26, 2016] 131.43 Maine. 131.44 Florida. 131.45 Revision of certain Federal water PART 131—WATER QUALITY quality criteria applicable to Wash- STANDARDS ington. 131.46 Aquatic life criterion for cadmium in Subpart A—General Provisions Oregon. AUTHORITY: 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq. Sec. 131.1 Scope. SOURCE: 48 FR 51405, Nov. 8, 1983, unless 131.2 Purpose. otherwise noted. 131.3 Definitions. 131.4 State authority. Subpart A—General Provisions 131.5 EPA authority. 131.6 Minimum requirements for water § 131.1 Scope. quality standards submission. 131.7 Dispute resolution mechanism. This part describes the requirements 131.8 Requirements for Indian Tribes to ad- and procedures for developing, review- minister a water quality standards pro- ing, revising, and approving water gram. quality standards by the States as au- thorized by section 303(c) of the Clean Subpart B—Establishment of Water Quality Water Act. Additional specific proce- Standards dures for developing, reviewing, revis- 131.10 Designation of uses. ing, and approving water quality stand- 131.11 Criteria. ards for Great Lakes States or Great 131.12 Antidegradation policy and imple- Lakes Tribes (as defined in 40 CFR mentation methods. 132.2) to conform to section 118 of the 131.13 General policies. Clean Water Act and 40 CFR part 132, 131.14 Water quality standards variances. are provided in 40 CFR part 132. 131.15 Authorizing the use of schedules of compliance for water quality-based efflu- [60 FR 15386, Mar. 23, 1995] ent limits in NPDES permits. § 131.2 Purpose. Subpart C—Procedures for Review and A water quality standard defines the Revision of Water Quality Standards water quality goals of a water body, or 131.20 State review and revision of water portion thereof, by designating the use quality standards. or uses to be made of the water and by 517 VerDate Sep<11>2014 12:43 Apr 08, 2021 Jkt 250174 PO 00000 Frm 00527 Fmt 8010 Sfmt 8010 Y:\SGML\250174.XXX 250174 spaschal on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with CFR § 131.3 40 CFR Ch. I (7–1–20 Edition) setting criteria that protect the des- they are included in the water quality ignated uses. States adopt water qual- standards. ity standards to protect public health (f) Designated uses are those uses or welfare, enhance the quality of specified in water quality standards for water and serve the purposes of the each water body or segment whether or Clean Water Act (the Act). ‘‘Serve the not they are being attained. purposes of the Act’’ (as defined in sec- (g) Use attainability analysis is a tions 101(a)(2) and 303(c) of the Act) structured scientific assessment of the means that water quality standards factors affecting the attainment of the should, wherever attainable, provide use which may include physical, chem- water quality for the protection and ical, biological, and economic factors propagation of fish, shellfish and wild- as described in § 131.10(g). life and for recreation in and on the (h) Water quality limited segment water and take into consideration their means any segment where it is known use and value of public water supplies, that water quality does not meet appli- propagation of fish, shellfish, and wild- life, recreation in and on the water, cable water quality standards, and/or is and agricultural, industrial, and other not expected to meet applicable water purposes including navigation. quality standards, even after the appli- cation of the technology-based effluent Such standards serve the dual purposes limitations required by sections 301(b) of establishing the water quality goals and 306 of the Act. for a specific water body and serve as the regulatory basis for the establish- (i) Water quality standards are provi- ment of water-quality-based treatment sions of State or Federal law which controls and strategies beyond the consist of a designated use or uses for technology-based levels of treatment the waters of the United States and required by sections 301(b) and 306 of water quality criteria for such waters the Act. based upon such uses. Water quality standards are to protect the public [48 FR 51405, Nov. 8, 1983, as amended at 80 health or welfare, enhance the quality FR 51046, Aug. 21, 2015] of water and serve the purposes of the § 131.3 Definitions. Act. (a) The Act means the Clean Water (j) States include: The 50 States, the Act (Pub. L. 92–500, as amended (33 District of Columbia, Guam, the Com- U.S.C. 1251 et seq.)). monwealth of Puerto Rico, Virgin Is- (b) Criteria are elements of State lands, American Samoa, the Common- water quality standards, expressed as wealth of the Northern Mariana Is- constituent concentrations, levels, or lands, and Indian Tribes that EPA de- narrative statements, representing a termines to be eligible for purposes of quality of water that supports a par- the water quality standards program. ticular use. When criteria are met, (k) Federal Indian Reservation, Indian water quality will generally protect Reservation, or Reservation means all the designated use. land within the limits of any Indian (c) Section 304(a) criteria are developed reservation under the jurisdiction of by EPA under authority of section the United States Government, not- 304(a) of the Act based on the latest withstanding the issuance of any pat- scientific information on the relation- ent, and including rights-of-way run- ship that the effect of a constituent ning through the reservation.’’ concentration has on particular aquat- (l) Indian Tribe or Tribe means any In- ic species and/or human health. This dian Tribe, band, group, or community information is issued periodically to recognized by the Secretary of the In- the States as guidance for use in devel- terior and exercising governmental au- oping criteria. thority over a Federal Indian reserva- (d) Toxic pollutants are those pollut- tion. ants listed by the Administrator under (m) Highest attainable use is the modi- section 307(a) of the Act. fied aquatic life, wildlife, or recreation (e) Existing uses are those uses actu- use that is both closest to the uses ally attained in the water body on or specified in section 101(a)(2) of the Act after November 28, 1975, whether or not and attainable, based on the evaluation 518 VerDate Sep<11>2014 12:43 Apr 08, 2021 Jkt 250174 PO 00000 Frm 00528 Fmt 8010 Sfmt 8010 Y:\SGML\250174.XXX 250174 spaschal on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with CFR Environmental Protection Agency § 131.5 of the factor(s) in § 131.10(g) that pre- poses of certifications conducted under clude(s) attainment of the use and any Clean Water Act section 401. other information or analyses that [56 FR 64893, Dec. 12, 1991, as amended at 59 were used to evaluate attainability. FR 64344, Dec. 14, 1994] There is no required highest attainable use where the State demonstrates the § 131.5 EPA authority. relevant use specified in section (a) Under section 303(c) of the Act, 101(a)(2) of the Act and sub-categories EPA is to review and to approve or dis- of such a use are not attainable. approve State-adopted water quality (n) Practicable, in the context of standards. The review involves a deter- § 131.12(a)(2)(ii), means technologically mination of: possible, able to be put into practice, (1) Whether the State has adopted and economically viable. designated water uses that are con- (o) A water quality standards variance sistent with the requirements of the (WQS variance) is a time-limited des- Clean Water Act; ignated use and criterion for a specific (2) Whether the State has adopted pollutant(s) or water quality param- criteria that protect the designated eter(s) that reflect the highest attain- water uses based on sound scientific ra- able condition during the term of the tionale consistent with § 131.11; WQS variance. (3) Whether the State has adopted an (p) Pollutant Minimization Program, in antidegradation policy that is con- the context of § 131.14, is a structured sistent with § 131.12, and whether any set of activities to improve processes State adopted antidegradation imple- and pollutant controls that will pre- mentation methods are consistent with vent and reduce pollutant loadings.
Recommended publications
  • R-17-76 Meeting 17-15 June 28, 2017 AGENDA ITEM 15 AGENDA ITEM

    R-17-76 Meeting 17-15 June 28, 2017 AGENDA ITEM 15 AGENDA ITEM

    R-17-76 Meeting 17-15 June 28, 2017 AGENDA ITEM 15 AGENDA ITEM Amendment to the La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve Master Plan to include One Proposed New Trail Loop and New Trail Names for the Preserve GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Approve an amendment to the La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve Master Plan to add a one-mile trail loop; 2. Approve the following trail names: “Harrington Creek Trail” for the main ranch road in lower La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve; “Folger Ranch Loop Trail” for a new loop trail off the main ranch road; “Coho Vista Trail” for the existing trail to the vista point in upper La Honda Creek; and “Cielo Trail” for an existing trail leading to the Redwood Cabin area. SUMMARY Phase I implementation of the La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve (OSP) Master Plan includes opening the Sears Ranch Road Parking Area, establishing the main Driscoll Ranch road in lower La Honda Creek as a hiking and equestrian trail, and providing permit-only equestrian parking at the former Event Center. The General Manager recommends adding an additional one-mile segment of an existing ranch road to the Phase I Trails Plan, to provide a seasonal loop opportunity, as an amendment to the Master Plan. In preparation for the opening of the Preserve, the General Manager also recommends new trail names for lower and upper La Honda Creek. The proposed trail names for lower La Honda Creek are: “Harrington Creek Trail” for the main ranch road and “Folger Ranch Trail” for the new loop.
  • San Mateo County

    San Mateo County

    Steelhead/rainbow trout resources of San Mateo County San Pedro San Pedro Creek flows northwesterly, entering the Pacific Ocean at Pacifica State Beach. It drains a watershed about eight square miles in area. The upper portions of the drainage contain springs (feeding the south and middle forks) that produce perennial flow in the creek. Documents with information regarding steelhead in the San Pedro Creek watershed may refer to the North Fork San Pedro Creek and the Sanchez Fork. For purposes of this report, these tributaries are considered as part of the mainstem. A 1912 letter regarding San Mateo County streams indicates that San Pedro Creek was stocked. A fishway also is noted on the creek (Smith 1912). Titus et al. (in prep.) note DFG records of steelhead spawning in the creek in 1941. In 1968, DFG staff estimated that the San Pedro Creek steelhead run consisted of 100 individuals (Wood 1968). A 1973 stream survey report notes, “Spawning habitat is a limiting factor for steelhead” (DFG 1973a, p. 2). The report called the steelhead resources of San Pedro Creek “viable and important” but cited passage at culverts, summer water diversion, and urbanization effects on the stream channel and watershed hydrology as placing “the long-term survival of the steelhead resource in question”(DFG 1973a, p. 5). The lower portions of San Pedro Creek were surveyed during the spring and summer of 1989. Three O. mykiss year classes were observed during the study throughout the lower creek. Researchers noticed “a marked exodus from the lower creek during the late summer” of yearling and age 2+ individuals, many of which showed “typical smolt characteristics” (Sullivan 1990).
  • SAN GREGORIO CREEK STREAM SYSTEM ) 12 ) in San Mateo County, California ) 13 ------) 14

    SAN GREGORIO CREEK STREAM SYSTEM ) 12 ) in San Mateo County, California ) 13 ------) 14

    (ENDORSED) 1 WILLIAM R. ATTWATER, Chief Counsel ANDREW H. SAWYER, Assistant Chief Counsel 2 M. G. TAYLOR, III, Senior Staff Counsel FILED • BARBARA A. KATZ, Staff Counsel JAN 2 9 1993 3 901 P Street WARREN SLOCUM, County C!cri( Sacramento, California 95814 j:,\!l;.l"'if' ",.,;;."""" ''­ :':y , J:.;i";J 1 "~1."""....ii, ..': .. ;• .'.~ 4 Telephone: (916) 657 -209 7 • C'EPu;Y C~:~~~~ 5 Attorneys for the State Water Resources Control Board 6 7 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 8 COUNTY OF SAN MATEO 9 In the Matter of the ) No. 355792 Determination of the Rights of ) 10 the various Claimants to the ) DECREE Water of ) 11 ) SAN GREGORIO CREEK STREAM SYSTEM ) 12 ) in San Mateo County, California ) 13 ------------------------------) 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 • 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS .............................................. i . , , 4 INDEX OF CLAIMANTS ........................................... iii " 5 Defini tions ............................................. 2 6 State Water Resources Control Board Map ................. 4 7 General. Entitlement ..................................... 4 8 Priori ty of Rights ...................................... 5 9 Post-1914 Appropriations ................................ 6 10 Seasons of Use .......................................... 7 11 Domestic Use ............................................ 7 12 S tockwa tering Use ....................................... 7 13 Irrigation Use .......................................... 8 14 Domestic and Stockwatering Uses During
  • MAA 5 Year Approved Projects List FY 2018‐19 Through FY 2022‐23

    MAA 5 Year Approved Projects List FY 2018‐19 Through FY 2022‐23

    Attachment 5 MAA 5 Year Approved Projects List FY 2018‐19 through FY 2022‐23 MAA Portfolio No. Project Name Project Description AA01‐ Miramontes Ridge: Replace current interior bridge with bridge or culvert crossing. The Madonna Bridge Gateway to the Coast Public Access, Stream current bridge is weight limited and does not allow for emergency Replacement Restoration and Agriculture Enhancement vehicle access. Investigate and implement alternative water supply at Madonna Creek AA01‐ Miramontes Ridge: Water Infrastructure Ranch to replace agricultural water currently provided through in‐ Gateway to the Coast Public Access, Stream Development stream impoundment on steelhead fisheries stream. Develop and Restoration and Agriculture Enhancement implement restoration plans for Madonna Creek. AA01‐ Miramontes Ridge: Pursue Land Conservation Purchase uplands portion of Johnston Ranch from POST as an addition Gateway to the Coast Public Access, Stream Opportunities to the Miramontes Ridge Open Space Preserve. Restoration and Agriculture Enhancement AA01‐ Miramontes Ridge: Pursue Public Access Pursue partnerships with other public agencies to improve public Gateway to the Coast Public Access, Stream Partnerships with Other access and preserve scenic open space in Miramontes Ridge Open Restoration and Agriculture Enhancement Public Agencies Space Preserve. Work with partners to purchase or otherwise secure public access AA02‐ Regional: Bayfront Habitat Protection Pursue Land Conservation rights on remaining properties needed to close gaps on the San and Public Access Partnerships Opportunities Francisco Bay Trail in the vicinity of Ravenswood Open Space Preserve. Cooley Landing ‐ AA02‐ Regional: Bayfront Habitat Protection New interpretative facilities, infrastructure, and signage related to Interpretative Facilities & and Public Access Partnerships Cooley Landing Park. Infrastructure Secure and record trail easement.
  • San Mateo County Watershed Data in a GIS

    San Mateo County Watershed Data in a GIS

    San Mateo County Watershed Data in a GIS Introduction The San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program (Program) performs Watershed Assessment and Monitoring (WAM) component activities in compliance with its municipal stormwater NPDES permit requirements. In the past, a consistent countywide watershed boundary data layer has not been available to meet Program needs for mapping and analyzing watershed-related data. As a result, the Program has previously utilized the best existing available data sets and/or developed new data to meet the objectives of specific individual projects. For example, creek location and watershed boundary data were developed to characterize imperviousness and channel modifications in seventeen watersheds in San Mateo County (STOPPP 2002). In another example, Program staff compiled existing countywide watershed data and developed new data needed to identify watershed areas considered exempt from Hydromodification Management Plan (HMP) requirements (STOPPP 2005). The Program previously identified two major information gaps in digital watershed boundary data: 1) limited storm drain catchment data were available for urban areas and 2) consistent countywide watershed data layers were not available (STOPPP 2005). Recent development of watershed data in urbanized portions of San Mateo County has provided an opportunity to address these information gaps. This memo describes the methods used by Program staff to create a consistent countywide watershed data layer that includes delineation of storm drain catchments in urban areas. Consistent watershed and creek data set will assist Program staff in watershed characterization and the identification and prioritization of potential future monitoring and watershed assessment activities. Background In 1999, the State of California developed a statewide watershed data layer entitled the California Interagency Watershed Map (Calwater).
  • On the Formation of Fluvial Islands

    On the Formation of Fluvial Islands

    AN ABSTRACT OF THE DISSERTATION OF Joshua R. Wyrick for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Civil Engineering presented on March 31, 2005. Title: On the Formation of Fluvial Islands Abstract approved: Signature redacted for privacy. Peter C. Klingeman This research analyzes the effects of islands on river process and the effects river processes have on island formation. A fluvial island is defined herein as a land mass within a river channel that is separated from the floodplain by water on all sides, exhibits some stability, and remains exposed during bankfull flow. Fluvial islands are present in nearly all major rivers. They must therefore have some impact on the fluid mechanics of the system, and yet there has never been a detailed study on fluvial islands.Islands represent a more natural state of a river system and have been shown to provide hydrologic variability and biotic diversity for the river. This research describes the formation of fluvial islands, investigates the formation of fluvial islands experimentally, determines the main relations between fluvial islands and river processes, compares and describes relationships between fluvial islands and residual islands found in megaflood outwash plains, and reaches conclusions regarding island shape evolution and flow energy loss optimization. Fluvial islands are known to form by at least nine separate processes: avulsion, gradual degradation of channel branches, lateral shifts in channel position, stabilization of a bar or riffle, isolation of structural features, rapid incision of flood deposits, sediment deposition in the lee of an obstacle, isolation of material deposited by mass movement, and isolation of riparian topography after the installation of a dam.
  • Water Quality Control Plan. San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) California Regional Water Quality Control Board

    Water Quality Control Plan. San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) California Regional Water Quality Control Board

    Golden Gate University School of Law GGU Law Digital Commons California Agencies California Documents 12-1986 Water Quality Control Plan. San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) California Regional Water Quality Control Board Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.ggu.edu/caldocs_agencies Part of the Environmental Law Commons, and the Water Law Commons Recommended Citation California Regional Water Quality Control Board, "Water Quality Control Plan. San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2)" (1986). California Agencies. Paper 393. http://digitalcommons.law.ggu.edu/caldocs_agencies/393 This Cal State Document is brought to you for free and open access by the California Documents at GGU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in California Agencies by an authorized administrator of GGU Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. WATER QUA~ITY · CONTROL PLAN Cover photo by: MICHAEL DRENNAN. Senior Water Resources Engineer San Francisco Bay Region DONALD E. ANDERSON, CHAIRMAN PETER W. SNYDER, VICE CHAIRMAN* FRED KLATTE* JANICE E. MONDAVI MARION OTSEA • KENNETH R. MERCER JEPTHA WADE PHILIP WENTE *Basin Plan Committee 1986 3 F N R R This report was prepared under the direction of Roger B. James ......................................................................... Executive Officer Lawrence P. Kolb ...................................................................... Assistant Executive Officer Richard H. Whitsel ..................................................................
  • 443 Subpart D—Federally Promulgated Water Quality Standards

    443 Subpart D—Federally Promulgated Water Quality Standards

    Environmental Protection Agency § 131.33 Subpart D—Federally Promulgated of streams located in Indian country, Water Quality Standards or as may be modified by the Regional Administrator, EPA Region X, pursu- § 131.31 Arizona. ant to paragraph (a)(3) of this section, ° (a) [Reserved] a temperature criterion of 10 C, ex- (b) The following waters have, in ad- pressed as an average of daily max- dition to the uses designated by the imum temperatures over a seven-day State, the designated use of fish con- period, applies to the waterbodies iden- sumption as defined in R18–11–101 tified in paragraph (a)(2) of this section (which is available from the Arizona during the months of June, July, Au- Department of Environmental Quality, gust and September. Water Quality Division, 3033 North (2) The following waters are pro- Central Ave., Phoenix, AZ 85012): tected for bull trout spawning and rearing: COLORADO MAIN STEM RIVER (i) BOISE-MORE BASIN: Devils BASIN: Creek, East Fork Sheep Creek, Sheep Hualapai Wash MIDDLE GILA RIVER BASIN: Creek. Agua Fria River (Camelback Road to (ii) BROWNLEE RESERVOIR BASIN: Avondale WWTP) Crooked River, Indian Creek. Galena Gulch (iii) CLEARWATER BASIN: Big Can- Gila River (Felix Road to the Salt yon Creek, Cougar Creek, Feather River) Creek, Laguna Creek, Lolo Creek, Queen Creek (Headwaters to the Su- Orofino Creek, Talapus Creek, West perior WWTP) Fork Potlatch River. Queen Creek (Below Potts Canyon) (iv) COEUR D’ALENE LAKE BASIN: SAN PEDRO RIVER BASIN: Cougar Creek, Fernan Creek, Kid Copper Creek Creek, Mica Creek, South Fork Mica SANTA CRUZ RIVER BASIN: Creek, Squaw Creek, Turner Creek.
  • 2019 Monitoring Or Reporting Violations Requiring Tier 3 Public Notice

    2019 Monitoring Or Reporting Violations Requiring Tier 3 Public Notice

    Michigan Public Water Supply Program 2019 Monitoring or Reporting Violations Requiring Tier 3 Public Notice List includes water supplies failing to monitor as required or report on time. Michigan Community Water Supply Tier 3 Violations Violation WSSN Water System Name County Contaminant Name Type MI0000012 ADA TOWNSHIP KENT M&R Water Quality Parameters MI0000012 ADA TOWNSHIP KENT M&R Water Quality Parameters MI0000020 ADAMS TOWNSHIP HOUGHTON M&R Lead & Copper MI0000040 ADRIAN LENAWEE M&R Total Haloacetic Acids MI0000040 ADRIAN LENAWEE M&R Total Trihalomethanes MI0000082 ALABASTER TOWNSHIP IOSCO M&R Total Haloacetic Acids MI0000082 ALABASTER TOWNSHIP IOSCO M&R Total Trihalomethanes MI0000100 ALBION CALHOUN M&R Lead & Copper MI0000160 ALPENA, CITY OF ALPENA M&R Chlorine MI0000170 ALPENA TOWNSHIP ALPENA M&R Total Haloacetic Acids MI0000170 ALPENA TOWNSHIP ALPENA M&R Total Trihalomethanes MI0000180 ALPHA IRON M&R Total Haloacetic Acids MI0000180 ALPHA IRON M&R Total Trihalomethanes MI0000236 ARBOR RIDGE CONDOMINIUMS JACKSON M&R Nitrate MI0000236 ARBOR RIDGE CONDOMINIUMS JACKSON M&R Lead & Copper MI0000250 ASHLEY, VILLAGE OF GRATIOT M&R Total Haloacetic Acids MI0000250 ASHLEY, VILLAGE OF GRATIOT M&R Total Trihalomethanes MI0000260 ATHENS CALHOUN M&R Water Quality Parameters MI0000420 BARODA BERRIEN M&R Total Coliform/E. Coli MI0000503 BEACON HOME AT COLBY MONTCALM M&R Total Coliform/E. Coli MI0000503 BEACON HOME AT COLBY MONTCALM M&R Lead & Copper MI0000503 BEACON HOME AT COLBY MONTCALM M&R Total Coliform/E. Coli (source) MI0000508 BEAR CREEK
  • 2016 Impaired Waters List A

    2016 Impaired Waters List A

    2016 Impaired Waters List A. Full Impaired Waters List (Categories 4 and 5) B. 2016 Proposed Listings C. 2016 Proposed Delistings Notes Listing records are provided for each impaired assessment unit (AU) and pollutant combination. Each waterbody and AU is assigned a unique number; waterbodies are assigned waterbody identification codes (WBIC) and assessment units are assigned WATERS IDs. The AU/pollutant listings are sorted alphabetically by local waterbody name. A. Full Impaired Waters List (Categories 4 and 5) Wisconsin’s comprehensive listing of impaired waters. Category 4 waters are those for which EPA-approved Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) have been developed. Category 5 waters are those for which TMDLs have not yet been developed. This list represents Wisconsin’s Section 303(d)-listed waters prepared in fulfillment of Clean Water Act Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act. B. 2016 Proposed Listings Listings proposed to be added in the draft 2016 Impaired Waters List. C. 2016 Proposed Delistings Listings proposed to be removed in the draft 2016 Impaired Waters List A. Full Impaired Waters List (Categories 4 and 5) WATERS Start End Size (Miles TMDL Creation Local Waterbody Name ID (AU) WBIC Water Type County Mile Mile or Acres) Date Listed Source Category Pollutant Impairment Indicator Impaired Water Status Priority Listing/Delisting Details Adams Valley Creek 14002 1653700 RIVER La Crosse 0 3 3 04/01/1998 NPS Sediment/Total Suspended Solids Degraded Habitat EAP Project Not Applicable TMDL Needed (5A) Adell Tributary 10092 33000
  • Fish Order 210.21 Trout Streams

    Fish Order 210.21 Trout Streams

    STATE OF MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES LANSING GRETCHEN WHITMER DANIEL EICHINGER GOVERNOR DIRECTOR A P P R O V E D ______________________,20____ SUBMITTED: July 20, 2020 MICHIGAN NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION RESUBMITTED: August 17, 2020 _____________________________ (ASSISTANT TO THE COMMISSION) MEMORANDUM TO THE NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION Subject: Fisheries Order 210.21 Designated Trout Streams for Michigan Authority: The Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act, 1994 PA 451, authorizes the Director and the Commission to issue Orders to regulate the taking of fish in the waters of this state. Discussion and Background: Fisheries Order 210 governs designated trout streams in Michigan. Fisheries Division recommends adding one stream to the Order and removing one stream from the Order. Carter Creek in Roscommon County has recently been surveyed where a thriving brook trout population has been documented. Adding Carter Creek to the Order will result in greater protection of brook trout by placing it into Type 1 trout fishing regulations. This will place a fishing and possession season from the last Saturday in April through September 30. The closed season will protect brook trout when they are most vulnerable during spawning season. Wright Creek in Oscoda County has been recommended for removal since the habitat is not suitable for trout. Several fisheries surveys have failed to document any trout and temperature data indicates that this is a warmwater stream which will not support trout. Removing Wright Creek will result in defaulting to general statewide fishing regulations open all year to fishing. Issue Pros and Cons Adding a stream to this Order will result in placing more protective fishing regulations on a valued trout population.
  • STATE of MARYLAND BOARD of NATURAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT of GEOLOGY, MINES and WATER RESOURCES Joseph T

    STATE of MARYLAND BOARD of NATURAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT of GEOLOGY, MINES and WATER RESOURCES Joseph T

    STATE OF MARYLAND BOARD OF NATURAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT OF GEOLOGY, MINES AND WATER RESOURCES Joseph T. Singewald, Jr., Director BULLETIN 6 SHORE EROSION IN TIDEWATER MARYLAND CaliforniaState Division of Mines RECEIVED JAN 2 41950 library San Francisco, California BALTIMORE, MARYLAND 1949 Composed and Printed at Waverly Press, Inc. Baltimore, Md., U.S.A. COMMISSION ON GEOLOGY, MINES AND WATER RESOURCES Arthue B. Stewart, Chairman Baltimore Holmes D. Baker Frederick Harry R. Hall Hyattsville Joseph C. Lore, Jr Solomons Island Mervin A. Pentz Denton CONTENTS The Shore Erosion Problem. By Joseph T. Singewald, Jr 1 The Maryland Situation 1 Federal Legislation 2 Policy in Other Slates 2 Uniqueness of the Maryland Problem 3 Shore Erosion Damage in Maryland 4 Methods of Shore Front Protection 4 Examples of Shore Erosion Problems 6 Miami Beach 6 New Bay Shore Park 8 Mountain Point, Gibson Island 10 Tall Timbers, Potomac River 12 Tydings on the Bay and Log Inn, Anne Arundel County 14 Sandy Point State Park 15 What Should be done about Shore Erosion 16 The Shore Erosion Measurements. By Turhit H. Slaughter 19 Definition of Terms 19 Anne Arundel County 21 Baltimore County 28 Calvert County 31 Caroline County 35 Cecil County 37 Charles County 40 Dorchester County. 45 Harford County 54 Kent County 61 Prince Georges County 66 Queen Annes County 69 St. Marys County 75 Somerset County 84 Talbot County 91 Wicomico County 107 Worcester County 109 Summary of Shore Erosion in Tidewater Maryland 115 Navigation Restoration Expenditures. By Turbit If. Slaughter 119 References 121 Description of Plates 29 to 35 123 LIST OF TABLES 1.