Potential for Harm for Discharge Violations. The “potential harm to beneficial uses” factor considers the harm that may result from exposure to the pollutants in the illegal discharge, while evaluating the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation(s). A three-factor scoring system is used for each violation or group of violations: (1) the potential for harm to beneficial uses; (2) the degree of toxicity of the discharge; and (3) whether the discharge is susceptible to cleanup or abatement.
Potential for Harm for Discharge Violations. The Prosecution Team is not alleging a discharge violation; therefore, it is not necessary to evaluate this factor.
Potential for Harm for Discharge Violations. This factor does not apply to these violations.
Potential for Harm for Discharge Violations. This factor is not applicable because those violations are non-discharge violations.
Potential for Harm for Discharge Violations. The “potential harm to beneficial uses” factor considers the harm that may result from exposure to the pollutants in the illegal discharge, while evaluating the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation(s). A three-factor scoring system is used for each violation or group of violations: (1) the potential for harm to beneficial uses; (2) the degree of toxicity of the discharge; and (3) whether the discharge is susceptible to cleanup or abatement. This factor evaluates direct or indirect harm or potential for harm from the violation. A score between 0 and 5 is assigned based on a determination of whether the harm or potential for harm to beneficial uses ranges from negligible (0) to major (5). The designated beneficial uses of Rattlesnake Creek, Big Jackass Creek and Moccasin Creek that could be impacted by the unauthorized discharge include municipal and domestic supply; agricultural supply; power generation; water contact recreation; noncontact water recreation; warm freshwater habitat; cold freshwater habitat; and wildlife habitat. Warm and cold freshwater habitats were the beneficial uses most obviously affected by the discharge from Priest Reservoir. DGF staff reported muddy deposits in the impacted reaches of the creeks extending 5.3 miles from Priest Reservoir. In general, the number of benthic individuals and taxonomic diversity was significantly less in areas of the creeks affected by the discharge than observed in areas of the reference reaches not affected by the discharge. Dead and stranded fish were also observed below Priest Dam. The discharge occurred for five days during a period of low natural flow in the creeks, so dilution was not available to moderate the impact of the discharge. According to the Discharger, sediment-laden water was only discharged the last two days of the event. Preliminary results of the site inspection conducted in February 2012 indicate the impacts of the release were still apparent in the benthic community two months after the discharge. The observed harm to beneficial uses was determined to be “Above Moderate” and a score of 4 is assigned for this factor. Streams immediately downstream of the discharge point (i.e., Priest Reservoir Dam) were significantly affected by increased siltation and turbidity. The discharge from the Reservoir was acutely deleterious to aquatic life and may cause a chronic impact due to habitat degradation. The DFW report stated that the continual erosion of deposited of cla...
Potential for Harm for Discharge Violations. This step is not applicable because the violation is a not a discharge violation.
Potential for Harm for Discharge Violations. The “potential harm to beneficial uses” factor considers the harm to beneficial uses that may result from exposure to the pollutants in the discharge, while evaluating the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation(s). A three-factor scoring system is used for each violation or group of violations: (1) the degree of toxicity; (2) the actual or potential for harm to beneficial uses; and (3) whether the discharge is susceptible to cleanup or abatement. Factor 1: The Physical, Chemical, Biological, or Thermal Characteristics of the Discharge A score between 0 and 4 is assigned based on a determination of the risk or threat of the discharged material. In this case, a score of 2 was assigned. A score of 2 is defined as the chemical and/or physical characteristics of the “Discharged material poses a moderate risk or threat to potential receptors (i.e., the chemical and/or physical characteristics of the discharged material have some level of toxicity or pose a moderate level of concern regarding receptor protection).” Discharge of broken concrete debris poses a threat by raising the pH of downstream waters. The discharge of sediment poses a threat to potential downstream receptors by filling downstream water features needed to support aquatic habitat. Therefore, a score of 2 is appropriate. This factor evaluates direct or indirect harm or potential for harm from the violation. A score between 0 and 5 is assigned based on a determination of whether the harm or potential for harm to beneficial uses is negligible (0) to major (5). In this case the potential harm to beneficial uses was determined to be moderate (i.e., a score of 3), which is defined as a “moderate harm or potential harm to beneficial uses. A score of moderate is typified by observed or reasonably expected potential impacts, but harm or potential harm to beneficial uses is moderate and likely to attenuate without appreciable medium or long term acute or chronic effects.” The Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa Ana River Basin, with updates from February 2008, June 2011, February 2016, and June 2019 (hereafter Basin Plan) designates beneficial uses, establishes water quality objectives, contains implementation plans and policies for protecting waters of the basin, and incorporates by reference plans and policies adopted by the State Water Resources Control Board. City Creek is tributary to Reach 5 of the Santa Ana River. City Creek Bypass Channel is a tributary to City Creek. Acc...
Potential for Harm for Discharge Violations. Factor 1: Harm or Potential Harm to Beneficial Uses.
Potential for Harm for Discharge Violations a. Factor 1: Degree of Toxicity of the Discharge A score between 0 and 4 is assigned based on a determination of the risk and threat of the discharged material. A score of 2 is assigned for this violation. A score of 2 is defined as “Discharged material poses a moderate risk or threat to potential receptors (i.e., the chemical and/or physical characteristics of the discharged material have some level of toxicity or pose a moderate risk or threat to potential receptors).” A score of 2 was selected because discharges of sediment to surface waters can cloud the receiving water, thereby reducing the amount of sunlight reaching aquatic plants, clog fish gills, and smothering aquatic habitat and spawning areas. Sediment can also transport other materials such as nutrients, metals, and oils and grease which can cause toxicity to aquatic organisms. Excess sediment in water poses a moderate level of concern to ecosystem health exposure pathways because of the likelihood that the discharged material would harm aquatic life.
b. Factor 2: Actual Harm or Potential Harm to Beneficial Uses The evaluation of the actual or potential harm to beneficial uses factor considers the harm to beneficial uses in the affected receiving water body that may result from exposure to the pollutants or contaminants in the discharge, consistent with the statutory factors of the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation. The Water Boards may consider actual harm or potential harm to human health, in addition to harm to beneficial uses. The score evaluates direct or indirect actual harm or potential for harm from the violation. The Actual Harm or Potential Harm to Beneficial Uses ranges between 0 and 5 based on a determination of whether the harm or potential for harm to beneficial uses is negligible (0), minor (1), below moderate (2), moderate (3), above moderate (4), or major
Potential for Harm for Discharge Violations. For this Complaint, the Central Valley Water Board Prosecution Team is not alleging any illegal discharge of waste by the Discharger. Therefore, the evaluation of this factor has been omitted from the following calculation.
