Final California 2010 Integrated Report (303(d) List/305(b) Report)

Supporting Information

Regional Board 1 - North Coast Region

Water Body Name:	Russian River HU, Upper Russian River HA, Coyote Valley HSA
Water Body ID:	CAR1143206019990615153325
Water Body Type:	River & Stream


DECISION ID	17501	Region 1
Russian River HU, Upper Russian River HA, Coyote Valley HSA

Pollutant:	Aldrin \| Atrazine \| Azinphos, Ethyl (Ethyl Guthion) \| Bolstar \| Carbofuran \| Chlordane \| Chlorothalonil \| Chlorpyrifos \| Chlorpyrifos, methyl \| Ciodrin \| Dacthal \| Demeton s \| Dichlofenthion \| Dichlorvos \| Dieldrin \| Dimethoate \| Dioxathion \| Dyfonate (Fonofos or Fonophos) \| Endrin \| Endrin Ketone \| Ethion \| Ethoprop \| Famphur \| Fenchlorphos \| Fenitrothion \| Fensulfothion \| Fenthion \| Glyphosate \| Heptachlor \| Heptachlor epoxide \| Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB \| Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), alpha \| Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), beta \| Leptophos \| Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) \| Merphos \| Methidathion \| Methoxychlor \| Methyl Parathion \| Mevinphos \| Molinate \| Naled \| Oxadiazon \| Oxychlordane \| Phorate \| Phosmet \| Phosphamidon \| Prometon (Prometone) \| Prometryn \| Propazine \| Secbumeton \| Simazine \| Simetryn \| Sulfotep \| Tedion \| Terbufos \| Terbuthylazine \| Terbutryn \| Tetrachlorvinphos \| Thiobencarb/Bolero \| Thionazin \| Tokuthion \| Toxaphene \| Trichlorfon \| Trichloronate \| beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) \| cis-Nonachlor \| delta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or delta-HCH) \| o,p'-DDD (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane)) \| o,p'-DDE (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene) \| p,p'-DDD (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane) \| p,p'-DDE \| p,p'-DDMU \| trans-Nonachlor
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:	These pollutants are 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. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples in LOE #30156exceed the water quality objective.The pollutants in LOE #29953do not have water quality objectives and, therefore, a decision could not be made. The samples were analyzed for 95 pesticides, pesticide constituents, isomers, or metabolites. For 95 of the pesticide analytes, 2 to 5 samples were collected. 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). 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. 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 1,290 samples for both LOEs, #29963, without criteria, or LOE #30156 with criteria, exceeded the water quality guidelines 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, 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):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 17501, Multiple Pollutants	Region 1
Russian River HU, Upper Russian River HA, Coyote Valley HSA

LOE ID:

30156

Pollutant:

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

1290

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

None of the 1,290 pesticide samples collected in the East Fork Russian River exceed the objective as all of the samples were measured as non-detect. The samples were analyzed for 95 pesticides, pesticide constituents, isomers, or metabolites. For 95 of the pesticide analytes, 2 to 5 samples were collected. 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): No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no bioaccumulation of pesticide concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life. Waters designated for use as domestic or municipal supply shall not contain concentrations of pesticides in excess of the limiting concentrations set forth in California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 4, Chapter 15, Article 4, Section 64444, and listed in Table 3.2 of the Basin Plan.
No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of the pesticides assessed for this waterbody for the Municipal & Domestic Supply beneficial use could be found that meet the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - North Coast Region (Region 1)

Evaluation Guideline:

Hexachlorocyclohexane, alpha (0.0026 ug/l)
Hexachlorocyclohexane, beta (0.0091ug/l)
Aldrin (0.000049 ug/l)
Atrazine (0.001 ug/l)
Carbofuran (0.04 mg/l)
Chlordane (0.0001 ug/l)
Chlorpyrifos (0.083 ug/l)
Dacthal (70 ug/l)
Dieldrin (0.00014 ug/l)
Endrin (0.002 ug/l)
Glyphosate (700 ug/l)
Heptachlor (0.01 ug/l)
Heptachlor epoxide (0.01 ug/l)
Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB (0.001 ug/l)
Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) (.98 ug/l)
Methoxychlor (0.03 mg/l)
Molinate (0.02 mg/l)
Simazine (0.04 mg/l)
Thiobencarb/Bolero (0.07 mg/l)
Toxaphene (0.003 mg/l)

Guideline Reference:

Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency

California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 4, Chapter 15. Domestic Water Quality and Monitoring

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the East Fork Russian River at 3 locations as follows: (1) at the PG&E Powerhouse (SWAMP Station ID 114EFRRPH), (2) at Highway 20 (SWAMP Station ID 114EFRR20), and (3) just below Coyote Dam (SWAMP Station ID 114EFRR01). Samples were collected from well-mixed flows in glides or riffles.

Temporal Representation:

At the Powerhouse and Highway 20 sites, samples were collected from 4 site visits at each site from October 2004 to June 2005. At the Coyote Dam site, samples were collected from 6 site visits from June 2001 to April 2005. Site visits corresponded to fall, winter, spring and early summer seasonal conditions.

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):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 17501, Multiple Pollutants	Region 1
Russian River HU, Upper Russian River HA, Coyote Valley HSA

LOE ID:

29963

Pollutant:

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

1290

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

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:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - North Coast Region (Region 1)

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Temporal Representation:

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):


DECISION ID	12337	Region 1
Russian River HU, Upper Russian River HA, Coyote Valley HSA

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 16 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 16 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 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):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 12337, Aluminum	Region 1
Russian River HU, Upper Russian River HA, Coyote Valley HSA

LOE ID:

25383

Pollutant:

Aluminum

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

None of the 16 aluminum samples collected from the East Fork Russian 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 East Fork Russian River at 3 locations as follows: (1) at the PG&E Powerhouse (SWAMP Station ID 114EFRRPH), (2) at Highway 20 (SWAMP Station ID 114DFRR20), and (3) just below Coyote Dam (SWAMP Station ID 114EFRR01). Samples were collected from well-mixed flows in glides or riffles.

Temporal Representation:

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	15759	Region 1
Russian River HU, Upper Russian River HA, Coyote Valley HSA

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 16 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 16 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):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 15759, Ammonia as Nitrogen	Region 1
Russian River HU, Upper Russian River HA, Coyote Valley HSA

LOE ID:

26331

Pollutant:

Ammonia as Nitrogen

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Aquatic Life Use:

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

None of the 16 ammonia as nitrogen samples collected from the East Fork Russian 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:

Spatial Representation:

Temporal Representation:

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	10670	Region 1
Russian River HU, Upper Russian River HA, Coyote Valley HSA

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 141 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 141 samples exceeded the metal objectives, and this does not exceed the allowable frequency of 12 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 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):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 10670, Multiple Pollutants	Region 1
Russian River HU, Upper Russian River HA, Coyote Valley HSA

LOE ID:

21542

Pollutant:

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

141

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

None of the 141 metal samples collected in the Russian River exceed the objectives. For each of the 10 metal parameters samples, there were 5 samples collected at the Powerhouse site, 5 samples collected at the Highway 20 site, and 4 to 5 sites collected at the Coyote Dam site. 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:

Temporal Representation:

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	12469	Region 1
Russian River HU, Upper Russian River HA, Coyote Valley HSA

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 16 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 16 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 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):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 12469, Chloride	Region 1
Russian River HU, Upper Russian River HA, Coyote Valley HSA

LOE ID:

25446

Pollutant:

Chloride

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Not Recorded

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

None of the 16 chloride samples collected in the East Fork Russian 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:

Temporal Representation:

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	13297	Region 1
Russian River HU, Upper Russian River HA, Coyote Valley HSA

Pollutant:	Indicator Bacteria
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	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. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 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. None of the 2 indicator bacteria (0 of the 1 E. Coli and 0 of the 1 total coliform) samples exceed the evaluation guideline used to interpret the water quality objective, and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 5 samples are needed for application of Table 3.2, 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:	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 it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not 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):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 13297, Indicator Bacteria	Region 1
Russian River HU, Upper Russian River HA, Coyote Valley HSA

LOE ID:

6319

Pollutant:

Escherichia coli (E. coli)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Water Contact Recreation

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

The 1 E. coli sample collected in the East Fork Russian River does not exceed the evaluation guideline. The sample concentrations is 200 MPN / 100 ml. The sample was collected as part of the Russian River First Flush sampling event. Data are summarized by Katznelson et al. (2003).

Data Reference:

2002 Russian River First Flush Summary Report. Clean Water Team, Citizen Monitoring Program of the State Water Resources Control Board

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Per the Basin Plan (NCRWQCB 2007): The bacteriological quality of waters of the North Coast Region shall not be degraded beyond natural background levels.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - North Coast Region (Region 1)

Evaluation Guideline:

Per the "Draft Guidance for Fresh Water Beaches" (DHS 2006): Beach posting is recommended when single sample E. coli levels exceed 235 MPN / 100 ml. *Note: MPN is the most probable number of coliform units.

Guideline Reference:

Draft Guidance for Fresh Water Beaches. Last Update: May 8, 2006. Initial Draft: November 1997. California Department of Public Health.

Spatial Representation:

The sample was collected from 1 site in the East Fork Russian River at East Side Potter Valley Road.

Temporal Representation:

The sample was collected on November 7, 2002.

Environmental Conditions:

The sample was collected during the first runoff event of the rainy season.

QAPP Information:

The sample was collected in accordance with the study plan and quality control procedures described by Katznelson et al. (2003).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

2002 Russian River First Flush Summary Report. Clean Water Team, Citizen Monitoring Program of the State Water Resources Control Board

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 13297, Indicator Bacteria	Region 1
Russian River HU, Upper Russian River HA, Coyote Valley HSA

LOE ID:

6320

Pollutant:

Total Coliform

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Water Contact Recreation

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

The 1 total coliform sample collected in the East Fork Russian River does not exceed the evaluation guideline. The sample concentration is 2,200 MPN / 100 ml. The sample was collected as part of the Russian River First Flush sampling event. Data are summarized by Katznelson et al. (2003).

Data Reference:

2002 Russian River First Flush Summary Report. Clean Water Team, Citizen Monitoring Program of the State Water Resources Control Board

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Per the Basin Plan (NCRWQCB 2007): The bacteriological quality of waters of the North Coast Region shall not be degraded beyond natural background levels.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - North Coast Region (Region 1)

Evaluation Guideline:

Per the "Draft Guidance for Fresh Water Beaches" (DHS 2006): Beach posting is recommended when single sample total coliform levels exceed 10,000 MPN / 100 ml. *Note: MPN is the most probable number of coliform units.

Guideline Reference:

Draft Guidance for Fresh Water Beaches. Last Update: May 8, 2006. Initial Draft: November 1997. California Department of Public Health.

Spatial Representation:

The sample was collected from 1 site in the East Fork Russian River at East Side Potter Valley Road.

Temporal Representation:

The sample was collected on November 7, 2002.

Environmental Conditions:

The sample was collected during the first runoff event of the rainy season.

QAPP Information:

The sample was collected in accordance with the study plan and quality control procedures described by Katznelson et al. (2003).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

2002 Russian River First Flush Summary Report. Clean Water Team, Citizen Monitoring Program of the State Water Resources Control Board


DECISION ID	12493	Region 1
Russian River HU, Upper Russian River HA, Coyote Valley HSA

Pollutant:	PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)
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 700 polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) 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 700 samples exceeded the PCB evaluation guideline used to interpret the water quality objective, and this does not exceed the allowable frequency of 60 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 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):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 12493, PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)	Region 1
Russian River HU, Upper Russian River HA, Coyote Valley HSA

LOE ID:

25471

Pollutant:

PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

700

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

None of the 700 polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) analytes collected in the East Fork Russian River exceed the evaluation guideline. Each of the 14 samples were analyzed for 50 PCB cogeners. 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. 3-4.00): 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 "Public Health Goal for Water Soluble Polychlorinated Biphenyls Expected to Found in Drinking Water" (OEHHA 2007): The health-protective concentration of water-soluble PCBs in
drinking water associated with a one in one million extra lifetime cancer risk is 0.09 ug/L.

Guideline Reference:

Public Health Goal for Water Soluble Polychlorinated Biphenyls Expected to Be Found in Drinking Water. Pesticide and Environmental Toxicology Branch, Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, California Environmental Protection Agency

Spatial Representation:

Temporal Representation:

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	12890	Region 1
Russian River HU, Upper Russian River HA, Coyote Valley HSA

Pollutant:	Pesticides
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. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the 1,291 pesticide samples exceed the objective. There are not enough samples of diazinon to allow for determination of water quality attainment by itself. Therefore, the diazinon sample is grouped into the larger pesticide group. 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 1,291 samples exceed the pesticides water quality objective, and this does not exceed the allowable frequency of 126 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 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):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 12890, Pesticides	Region 1
Russian River HU, Upper Russian River HA, Coyote Valley HSA

LOE ID:

6321

Pollutant:

Diazinon

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

The 1 diazinon sample collected in the East Fork Russian River does not exceed the evaluation guideline. The sample concentrations is 0.03 ug/l. The sample was collected as part of the Russian River First Flush sampling event. Data are summarized by Katznelson et al. (2003).

Data Reference:

2002 Russian River First Flush Summary Report. Clean Water Team, Citizen Monitoring Program of the State Water Resources Control Board

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - North Coast Region (Region 1)

Evaluation Guideline:

Per the California Department of Health Services' Archived Advisory Levels for Drinking Water (DHS 2007): The archived advisory level for diazinon is 6 ug/l.

Guideline Reference:

Archived Advisory Levels for Drinking Water. California Department of Health Services - Drinking Water Program

Spatial Representation:

The sample was collected from 1 site in the East Fork Russian River at East Side Potter Valley Road.

Temporal Representation:

The sample was collected on November 7, 2002.

Environmental Conditions:

The samples was collected during the first runoff event of the rainy season.

QAPP Information:

The sample was collected in accordance with the study plan and quality control procedures described by Katznelson et al. (2003).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

2002 Russian River First Flush Summary Report. Clean Water Team, Citizen Monitoring Program of the State Water Resources Control Board


DECISION ID	13362	Region 1
Russian River HU, Upper Russian River HA, Coyote Valley HSA

Pollutant:	Phosphorus
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. It is unknown if any of the phosphorus samples exceed the water quality objective as there is insufficient information available to determine exceedance. Specifically, the samples cannot be compared to the objective because diel samples for dissolved oxygen (DO), pH, and/or chlorophyll-a are not available. Nutrients such as phosphorus do not impair beneficial uses by themselves, or cause non-attainment of the objective. Rather, they cause indirect impacts through algal growth and extreme diel patterns for DO and pH, which then impair uses. Waterbody-specific factors such as riparian cover, flow conditions, and stream channel configuration also affect how nutrients are processed within the stream and play a large role in determining whether or not nuisance algal conditions will prevail. For these reasons, comparing a single nutrient value to the biostimulatory objective is not recommended. Instead, nutrient-related indicator parameters, such as diel measurements of DO, pH, and/or chlorophyll-a, should be evaluated to determine attainment of the objective and protection of beneficial uses. When nutrient-related indicator parameters exceed targets, nutrient concentrations will then be analyzed to determine whether phosphorus should be added to a possible listing under the 303(d) List. Therefore, 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. 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) The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of Section 6.1.5 of the Policy. (3) 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 it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not 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):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 13362, Phosphorus	Region 1
Russian River HU, Upper Russian River HA, Coyote Valley HSA

LOE ID:

6318

Pollutant:

Phosphorus

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Aquatic Life Use:

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

It is unknown whether the 1 phosphorus sample collected in the East Fork Russian River exceeds the objective as there is insufficient information available to determine exceedance. Specifically, the sample cannot be compared to the objective because diel samples for dissolved oxygen (DO), pH, and/or chlorophyll-a are not available. Nutrients, such as phosphorus, alone do not impair beneficial uses or cause non-attainment of the objective. Rather, they cause indirect impacts through algal growth and extreme diel patterns for DO and pH, which then impair uses. Waterbody-specific factors such as riparian cover, flow conditions, and stream channel configuration also affect how nutrients are processed within the stream and play a large role in determining whether or not nuisance algal conditions will prevail. For these reasons, comparing a single nutrient value to the biostimulatory objective is not recommended. Instead, nutrient-related indicator parameters, such as diel measurements of DO, pH, and/or chlorophyll-a, should be evaluated to determine attainment of the objective and protection of beneficial uses. When nutrient-related indicator parameters exceed targets, nutrient concentrations will then be analyzed to determine whether phosphorus should be added to a possible listing under the 303(d) List. The sample concentration is 0.05 mg/L. The sample was collected as part of the Russian River First Flush sampling event. Data are summarized by Katznelson et al. (2003).

Data Reference:

2002 Russian River First Flush Summary Report. Clean Water Team, Citizen Monitoring Program of the State Water Resources Control Board

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Per the Basin Plan (NCRWQCB 2007): Waters shall not contain biostimulatory substances in concentrations that promote aquatic growths to the extent that such growths cause nuisance, or that otherwise adversely affect beneficial uses.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - North Coast Region (Region 1)

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The sample was collected from 1 site in the East Fork Russian River at East Side Potter Valley Road.

Temporal Representation:

The sample was collected on November 7, 2002.

Environmental Conditions:

The samples was collected during the first runoff event of the rainy season.

QAPP Information:

The sample was collected in accordance with the study plan and quality control procedures described by Katznelson et al. (2003).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

2002 Russian River First Flush Summary Report. Clean Water Team, Citizen Monitoring Program of the State Water Resources Control Board


DECISION ID	10569	Region 1
Russian River HU, Upper Russian River HA, Coyote Valley HSA

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. None of the 15 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) None of the 15 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 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):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 10569, Specific Conductivity	Region 1
Russian River HU, Upper Russian River HA, Coyote Valley HSA

LOE ID:

21321

Pollutant:

Specific Conductivity

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

None of the 14 specific conductivity grab samples collected from the East Fork Russian 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 22 CCR 64449: The recommended secondary Maximum Content Level (MCL) is 900 uS/cm.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Title 22. Division 4. Chapter 15. Sections 64400 et seq. California Code of Regulations

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Temporal Representation:

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)

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 10569, Specific Conductivity	Region 1
Russian River HU, Upper Russian River HA, Coyote Valley HSA

LOE ID:

6315

Pollutant:

Specific Conductivity

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

The 1 specific conductivity sample collected in the East Fork Russian River does not exceed the specific conductivity water quality objective. The sample concentration is 170 mS/cm2. The sample was collected as part of the Russian River First Flush sampling event. Data are summarized by Katznelson et al. (2003).

Data Reference:

2002 Russian River First Flush Summary Report. Clean Water Team, Citizen Monitoring Program of the State Water Resources Control Board

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Per the Basin Plan (NCRWQCB 2007): The 90% upper limit specific conductance objective at 77 F is 320 micromhos (or mS/cm2). The 50% upper limit specific conductance objective at 77 F is 250 micromhos (or mS/cm2). The 90% and 50% upper limits represent the 90/50 percentile values of the monthly means 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:

The sample was collected from 1 site in the East Fork Russian River at East Side Potter Valley Road.

Temporal Representation:

The sample was collected on November 7, 2002.

Environmental Conditions:

The sample was collected during the first runoff event of the rainy season.

QAPP Information:

The sample was collected in accordance with the study plan and quality control procedures described by Katznelson et al. (2003).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

2002 Russian River First Flush Summary Report. Clean Water Team, Citizen Monitoring Program of the State Water Resources Control Board


DECISION ID	12538	Region 1
Russian River HU, Upper Russian River HA, Coyote Valley HSA

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 6 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 6 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 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):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 12538, Sulfates	Region 1
Russian River HU, Upper Russian River HA, Coyote Valley HSA

LOE ID:

25555

Pollutant:

Sulfates

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Not Recorded

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

None of the 6 sulfate samples collected in the East Fork Russian 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:

Temporal Representation:

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	13298	Region 1
Russian River HU, Upper Russian River HA, Coyote Valley HSA

Pollutant:	pH
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. 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. None of the 1 pH samples exceed the water quality objective, and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 5 samples are needed for application of Table 3.2, and only 1 sample is 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:	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 it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not 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):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 13298, pH	Region 1
Russian River HU, Upper Russian River HA, Coyote Valley HSA

LOE ID:

6317

Pollutant:

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Aquatic Life Use:

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

The 1 pH sample collected in the East Fork Russian River does not exceed the pH water quality objective. The sample pH concentration is 7. The sample was collected as part of the Russian River First Flush sampling event. Data are summarized by Katznelson et al. (2003).

Data Reference:

2002 Russian River First Flush Summary Report. Clean Water Team, Citizen Monitoring Program of the State Water Resources Control Board

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Per the Basin Plan (NCRWQCB 2007): The maximum pH objective is 8.5. The minimum pH objective is 6.5

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - North Coast Region (Region 1)

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The sample was collected from 1 site in the East Fork Russian River at East Side Potter Valley Road.

Temporal Representation:

The sample was collected on November 7, 2002.

Environmental Conditions:

The sample was collected during the first runoff event of the rainy season.

QAPP Information:

The sample was collected in accordance with the study plan and quality control procedures described by Katznelson et al. (2003).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

2002 Russian River First Flush Summary Report. Clean Water Team, Citizen Monitoring Program of the State Water Resources Control Board


DECISION ID	4322	Region 1
Russian River HU, Upper Russian River HA, Coyote Valley HSA

Pollutant:	Sedimentation/Siltation
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)(2006)
Revision Status	Original
Sources:	Agriculture \| Bridge Construction \| Channel Erosion \| Channelization \| Construction/Land Development \| Dam Construction \| Drainage/Filling Of Wetlands \| Erosion/Siltation \| Flow Alteration/Regulation/Modification \| Habitat Modification \| Hydromodification \| Removal of Riparian Vegetation \| Silviculture \| Streambank Modification/Destabilization
Expected TMDL Completion Date:	2019
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	303(d) listing decisions made prior to 2006 were not held in an assessment database. The Regional Boards will update this decision when new data and information become available and are assessed.

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):	USEPA approved the listing of this water body as a water quality limited segment requiring a TMDL for this pollutant.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 4322, Sedimentation/Siltation	Region 1
Russian River HU, Upper Russian River HA, Coyote Valley HSA

LOE ID:

4776

Pollutant:

Sedimentation/Siltation

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Not Specified

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

This LOE is a placeholder to support a 303(d) listing decision made prior to 2006.

Data Reference:

Placeholder reference pre-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:

Unspecified

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	6579	Region 1
Russian River HU, Upper Russian River HA, Coyote Valley HSA

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)(2006)
Revision Status	Original
Sources:	Flow Alteration/Regulation/Modification \| Habitat Modification \| Hydromodification \| Nonpoint Source \| Removal of Riparian Vegetation \| Streambank Modification/Destabilization \| Upstream Impoundment
Expected TMDL Completion Date:	2019
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	303(d) listing decisions made prior to 2006 were not held in an assessment database. The Regional Boards will update this decision when new data and information become available and are assessed.

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):	USEPA approved the listing of this water body as a water quality limited segment requiring a TMDL for this pollutant.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 6579, Temperature, water	Region 1
Russian River HU, Upper Russian River HA, Coyote Valley HSA

LOE ID:

4777

Pollutant:

Temperature, water

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Not Specified

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

This LOE is a placeholder to support a 303(d) listing decision made prior to 2006.

Data Reference:

Placeholder reference pre-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:

Unspecified

QAPP Information Reference(s):