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

Supporting Information

Regional Board 1 - North Coast Region

Water Body Name:	Eel River HU, South Fork HA
Water Body ID:	CAR1113103019980710155233
Water Body Type:	River & Stream


DECISION ID	17483	Region 1
Eel River HU, South Fork HA

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 #30103 exceed the water quality objective.The pollutants in LOE #29806 do 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 each of the 95 pesticide analytes, 1 to 7 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 722 samples for both LOEs, #29806, without criteria, or LOE #30103with 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 conclude that these water body-pollutant combinations should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant 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 17483, Multiple Pollutants	Region 1
Eel River HU, South Fork HA

LOE ID:

30103

Pollutant:

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

722

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

None of the 722 pesticide samples collected in the South Fork Eel River watershed exceed the objective as all of the samples were either measured as non-detect or were measured as detected but not quantified with reporting limits below objectives or evaluation guidelines. The samples were analyzed for 95 pesticides, pesticide constituents, isomers, or metabolites. For each of the 95 pesticide analytes, 1 to 7 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 South Fork Eel River watershed at 2 locations as follows: (1) downstream of Bull Creek (SWAMP Station ID 111EELSFK), and (2) from Elder Creek (SWAMP Station ID 111ELDRCR). Samples were collected from well-mixed flows in glides or riffles.

Temporal Representation:

At the site downstream of Bull Creek, samples were collected from 23 site visits from March 2001 to June 2006. At Elder Creek, samples were collected from 19 site visits from February 2002 to June 2006. Most of the 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 17483, Multiple Pollutants	Region 1
Eel River HU, South Fork HA

LOE ID:

29806

Pollutant:

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

722

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:

Samples were collected from the Lower Mainstem Eel River at Holmes (SWAMP Station ID 111EELHOL). 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 (SWAMP 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	15744	Region 1
Eel River HU, South Fork HA

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

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the Section 303(d) List under Section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under Section 3.1, a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the 42 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 42 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 15744, Ammonia as Nitrogen	Region 1
Eel River HU, South Fork HA

LOE ID:

26314

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 42 ammonia as nitrogen samples collected from South Fork Eel River Watershed exceed the objective. The samples were collected as part of the Surface Water Ambient Water Monitoring Program (SWAMP). The data are found in the SWAMP Summary Report for the North Coast Region for Years 2000-2006 (NCRWQCB 2008).

Data Reference:

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). Summary Report for the North Coast Region (RWQCB-1) for years 2000-2006. North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board. March 2008

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Per the Basin Plan (NCRWQCB 2007): All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

Per the National Recommended Water Quality Criteria (USEPA 2006): The 1-hour average concentration (acute criterion or CMC) of total ammonia nitrogen (in mg N/L) for freshwater where salmonid fish are present, which is not to be exceeded more than once every three years on average, is calculated using the following equation: CMC=0.275/(1+10^(7.204 - pH)) + 39.0/(1+10^(pH - 7.204)).

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the South Fork Eel River Watershed at 4 locations as follows: (1) from the mainstem South Fork near Branscomb (SWAMP Station ID 111EELBRN), (2) from the mainstem South Fork near Benbow (SWAMP Station ID 111EELBEN), (3) from the mainstem South Fork downstream of Bull Creek (SWAMP Station ID 111EELSFK), and (4) from Elder Creek (SWAMP Station ID 111ELDRCR). Samples were collected from well-mixed flows in glides or riffles.

Temporal Representation:

At the Branscomb site, samples were collected from 13 site visits from February 2002 to April 2005. At the Benbow site, samples were collected from 4 site visits from February to June 2002. At the site downstream of Bull Creek, samples were collected from 23 site visits from March 2001 to June 2006. At Elder Creek, samples were collected from 19 site visits from February 2002 to June 2006. Most of the 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 (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	10654	Region 1
Eel River HU, South Fork HA

Pollutant:	Arsenic \| Cadmium \| Chromium (total) \| Copper \| Lead \| Mercury \| Nickel \| Selenium \| Silver \| Zinc
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the Section 303(d) List under Section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under Section 3.1, a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the 555 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 555 samples exceed the metal objectives, and this does not exceed the allowable frequency of 48 per the binomial distribution described in Section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. (4) Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, North Coast RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the Section 303(d) List because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

State Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 10654, Multiple Pollutants	Region 1
Eel River HU, South Fork HA

LOE ID:

21527

Pollutant:

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

555

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

None of the 555 metal samples collected in the South Fork Eel River Watershed exceed the objectives. For each of the 10 metal parameters, there were 11 to 13 samples each collected at the Branscomb site, 4 to 5 samples each collected at the Benbow site, 19 to 23 samples each collected at the Bull Creek site, and 16 to 19 samples collected in Elder Creek. The samples were collected as part of the Surface Water Ambient Water Monitoring Program (SWAMP). The data are found in the SWAMP Summary Report for the North Coast Region for Years 2000-2006 (NCRWQCB 2008).

Data Reference:

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). Summary Report for the North Coast Region (RWQCB-1) for years 2000-2006. North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board. March 2008

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Per the Basin Plan (NCRWQCB 2007): Arsenic objective is 0.05 mg/L. Cadmium objective is 0.01 mg/L. Chromium objective is 0.05 mg/L. Lead objective is 0.05 mg/L. Mercury objective is 0.002 mg/L. Selenium objective is 0.01 mg/L. Silver objective is 0.05 mg/L. Per 22 CCR 64431: Nickel maximum contaminant level is 0.1 mg/L. Per 22 CCR 64449: Copper secondary maximum contaminant level is 1.0 mg/L. Zinc secondary maximum contaminant level is 5.0 mg/L.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

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

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the South Fork Eel River Watershed at 4 locations as follows: (1) in the South Fork Eel River near Branscomb (SWAMP Station ID 111EELBRN), (2) in the South Fork Eel River near Benbow (SWAMP Station ID 111EELBEN), (3) in the South Fork Eel River downstream of Bull Creek (SWAMP Station ID 111EELSFK), and (4) in Elder Creek (SWAMP Station ID 111ELDRCR). Samples were collected from well-mixed flows in glides or riffles.

Temporal Representation:

At the Branscomb site, samples were collected from 13 site visits from February 2002 to April 2005. At the Benbow site, samples were collected from 4 site visits from February to June 2002. At the site downstream of Bull Creek, samples were collected from 23 site visits from March 2001 to June 2006. At the Elder Creek site, samples were collected from 19 site visits from February 2002 to June 2006. Most of the 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):

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	12453	Region 1
Eel River HU, South Fork HA

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

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the Section 303(d) List under Section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under Section 3.2, a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the 42 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 42 samples exceeded the chloride evaluation guideline used to interpret the water quality objective, and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy. (4) Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, North Coast RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the Section 303(d) List because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

State Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 12453, Chloride	Region 1
Eel River HU, South Fork HA

LOE ID:

25431

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 42 chloride samples collected in the South Fork Eel River exceed the evaluation guideline. The samples were collected as part of the Surface Water Ambient Water Monitoring Program (SWAMP). The data are found in the SWAMP Summary Report for the North Coast Region for Years 2000-2006 (NCRWQCB 2008).

Data Reference:

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). Summary Report for the North Coast Region (RWQCB-1) for years 2000-2006. North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board. March 2008

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Per the Basin Plan (NCRWQCB 2007): Waters shall not contain taste- or odor-producing substances in concentrations that impart undesirable tastes or odors to fish flesh or other edible products of aquatic origin, or that cause nuisance or adversely affect beneficial uses.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

Per 22 CCR 64449: The recommended Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level for chloride is 250 mg/L.

Guideline Reference:

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

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the South Fork Eel River at 3 locations as follows: (1) near Branscomb (SWAMP Station ID 111EELBRN), (2) near Benbow (SWAMP Station ID 111EELBEN), (3) downstream of Bull Creek (SWAMP Station ID 111EELSFK), and (4) from Elder Creek (SWAMP Station ID 111ELDRCR). Samples were collected from well-mixed flows in glides or riffles.

Temporal Representation:

At the Branscomb site, samples were collected from 13 site visits from February 2002 to April 2005. At the Benbow site, samples were collected from 4 site visits from February to June 2002. At the site downstream of Bull Creek, samples were collected from 23 site visits from March 2001 to June 2006. At the Elder Creek site, samples were collected from 19 site visits from February 2002 to June 2006. Most of the 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):

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	12488	Region 1
Eel River HU, South Fork HA

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 400 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 400 samples exceeded the PCB evaluation guideline used to interpret the water quality objective, and this does not exceed the allowable frequency of 35 per the binomial distribution described in Section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. (4) Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, North Coast RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the Section 303(d) List because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

State Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 12488, PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)	Region 1
Eel River HU, South Fork HA

LOE ID:

25467

Pollutant:

PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

400

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

None of the 400 polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) analytes collected in the South Fork Eel River watershed exceed the evaluation guideline. Each of the 8 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:

Samples were collected from the South Fork Eel River watershed at 2 locations as follows: (1) in the South Fork Eel River downstream of Bull Creek (SWAMP Station ID 111EELSFK), and (2) from Elder Creek (SWAMP Station ID 111ELDRCR). Samples were collected from well-mixed flows in glides or riffles.

Temporal Representation:

Samples in the South Fork were collected from March 2001 to June 2006. Samples from Elder Creek were collected from February 2002 to June 2006. 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):

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	12661	Region 1
Eel River HU, South Fork HA

Pollutant:	Pentachlorophenol (PCP)
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. One of the 6 samples analyzed for pentachlorophenol 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) One of the 6 samples exceed the pentachlorophenol evaluation guideline used to interpret 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 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 12661, Pentachlorophenol (PCP)	Region 1
Eel River HU, South Fork HA

LOE ID:

25589

Pollutant:

Pentachlorophenol (PCP)

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:

One of the 6 pentachlorophenol samples collected in the South Fork Eel River watershed exceed the evaluation guideline. Sample concentrations range from non-detect (with a reporting limit of 0.001) to 0.500 ug/l. 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:

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 recommended criterion for pentachlorophenol for the protection of source waters for human health consumption of water and organisms is 0.27 ug/l.

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	12856	Region 1
Eel River HU, South Fork HA

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. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Two of the 731 pesticide samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the Section 303(d) List in the Water Quality Limited Segments category (i.e., sufficient justification to not list). This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: (1) The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of Section 6.1.4 of the Policy. (2) The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of Section 6.1.5 of the Policy. (3) Two of the 731 samples exceed the pesticide water quality objective, and this does not exceed the allowable frequency of 62 per the binomial distribution described in Section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. (4) Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, North Coast RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the Section 303(d) List because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

State Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 12856, Pesticides	Region 1
Eel River HU, South Fork HA

LOE ID:

25624

Pollutant:

Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB

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:

One of the 8 hexachlorobenzene samples collected in the South Fork Eel River watershed exceeds the evaluation guideline. Sample concentrations range from non-detect (with a reporting limit of 0.001 ug/l) to detected but not quantified with a concentration of at least 0.001 ug/l. 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:

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 recommended criterion for hexachlorobenzene for the protection of source waters for human health consumption of water and organisms is 0.00028 ug/l.

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)

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 12856, Pesticides	Region 1
Eel River HU, South Fork HA

LOE ID:

25623

Pollutant:

DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)

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:

One DDT sample collected in the South Fork HA had a detectable level of DDT and the sample exceeds the evaluation guideline. The sample concentration was reported as detected not quantifiable (DNQ), with estimated value of .003 ug/l (method detection limit of 0.002 ug/l, reporting limit of .005 ug/l). There were also an additional 0 samples from the South Fork HA, which were non-detect. However, these non-detect data could not be utilized in this assessment because the detection limit for DDT is above the evaluation guideline. Per the listing policy, when a sample value is less than the quantitation limit, and the quantitation limit is greater than the evaluation guideline, the result shall not be used in the analysis. The samples were collected as part of the Surface Water Ambient Water Monitoring Program (SWAMP) (NCRWQCB 2008).

Data Reference:

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). DDT, DDE, and DDD data from SWAMP Sampling for Years 2001-2006. North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board.

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

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 recommended criterion for DDT for the protection of source waters for human health consumption of water and organisms is 0.00022 ug/l.

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the South Fork HA at 2 locations as follows: (1) South Fork Eel River downstream of Bull Creek (SWAMP Station ID 111EELSFK), and (2) from Elder Creek (SWAMP Station ID 111ELDRCR). Samples were collected from well-mixed flows in glides or runs.

Temporal Representation:

At the South Fork Eel River site the sample was collected on February 24, 2002. At Elder Creek, samples were collected from 9 site visits from February 2002 to April 2005. Most of the 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):

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	12659	Region 1
Eel River HU, South Fork HA

Pollutant:	Phenol
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 2 samples analyzed for 2,3,4,6-tetrachlorophenol 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 2 samples exceed the 2,3,4,6-tetrachlorophenol evaluation guideline used to interpret 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 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 12659, Phenol	Region 1
Eel River HU, South Fork HA

LOE ID:

25590

Pollutant:

2,3,4,6-tetrachlorophenol

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 two 2,3,4,6-tetrachlorophenol samples collected in the South Fork Eel River watershed exceed the evaluation guideline. The samples were collected as part of the Surface Water Ambient Water Monitoring Program (SWAMP). The data are found in the 5-Year Monitoring Report (NCRWQCB 2008).

Data Reference:

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). Summary Report for the North Coast Region (RWQCB-1) for years 2000-2006. North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board. March 2008

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

Per the "Quality Criteria for Water 1986" (USEPA 1986), also known as the Gold Book: The 2,3,4,6-tetrachlorophenol criterion to control undesirable taste and odor qualities of ambient water is estimated at 1.0 ug/l.

Guideline Reference:

Quality Criteria for Water 1986. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Regulations and Standards. Washington D.C. EPA 440/5-86-001.

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the South Fork Eel River downstream of Bull Creek (SWAMP Station ID 111EELSFK). Samples were collected from well-mixed flows in glides or riffles.

Temporal Representation:

Samples were collected from 23 site visits from March 2001 to June 2006. The 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):

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	10553	Region 1
Eel River HU, South Fork HA

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

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the Section 303(d) List under Section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under Section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the 59 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 59 samples exceed the specific conductivity objective, and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy. (4) Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, North Coast RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the Section 303(d) List because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

State Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 10553, Specific Conductivity	Region 1
Eel River HU, South Fork HA

LOE ID:

21299

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 19 specific conductivity grab samples collected from the Elder Creek 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:

Samples were collected from Elder Creek above the confluence with the Eel River (SWAMP Station ID 111ELDRCR). Samples were collected from well-mixed flows in glides or riffles.

Temporal Representation:

Samples were collected from 19 site visits from February 2002 to June 2006. Most of the 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 (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 10553, Specific Conductivity	Region 1
Eel River HU, South Fork HA

LOE ID:

21298

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 40 specific conductivity grab samples collected from the South Fork Eel River exceed the objective. The samples were collected as part of the Surface Water Ambient Water Monitoring Program (SWAMP). The data are found in the SWAMP Summary Report for the North Coast Region for Years 2000-2006 (NCRWQCB 2008).

Data Reference:

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). Summary Report for the North Coast Region (RWQCB-1) for years 2000-2006. North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board. March 2008

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Per the Basin Plan (NCRWQCB 2007): The 90% upper limit specific conductance objective at 77 F is 350 micromhos (or mS/cm2). The 50% upper limit specific conductance objective at 77 F is 200 micromhos (or mS/cm2). The 90% and 50% upper limits represent the 90/50 percentile values for a calendar year. 90% or 50% or more of the values must be less than or equal to the upper limit.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the South Fork Eel River at 3 locations as follows: (1) near Branscomb (SWAMP Station ID 111EELBRN), (2) near Benbow (SWAMP Station ID 111EELBEN), and (3) downstream of Bull Creek (SWAMP Station ID 111EELSFK). Samples were collected from well-mixed flows in glides or riffles.

Temporal Representation:

At the Branscomb site, samples were collected from 13 site visits from February 2002 to April 2005. At the Benbow site, samples were collected from 4 site visits from February to June 2002. At the site downstream of Bull Creek, samples were collected from 23 site visits from March 2001 to June 2006. Most of the 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 (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	12523	Region 1
Eel River HU, South Fork HA

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

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the Section 303(d) List under Section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under Section 3.2, a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the 42 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 42 samples exceed the sulfate evaluation guideline used to interpret the water quality objective, and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy. (4) Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, North Coast RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the Section 303(d) List because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

State Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 12523, Sulfates	Region 1
Eel River HU, South Fork HA

LOE ID:

25540

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 42 sulfate samples collected in the South Fork Eel River watershed exceed the evaluation guideline. The samples were collected as part of the Surface Water Ambient Water Monitoring Program (SWAMP). The data are found in the 5-Year Monitoring Report (NCRWQCB 2008).

Data Reference:

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). Summary Report for the North Coast Region (RWQCB-1) for years 2000-2006. North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board. March 2008

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Per the Basin Plan (NCRWQCB 2007, p. 3-3.00): Waters shall not contain taste- or odor-producing substances in concentrations that impart undesirable tastes or odors to fish flesh or other edible products of aquatic origin, or that cause nuisance or adversely affect beneficial uses.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

Per 22 CCR 64449 (Table 64449-B): The recommended secondary maximum contaminant level for sulfate is 250 mg/L.

Guideline Reference:

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

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the South Fork Eel River watershed at 4 locations as follows: (1) near Branscomb (SWAMP Station ID 111EELBRN), (2) near Benbow (SWAMP Station ID 111EELBEN), (3) downstream of Bull Creek (SWAMP Station ID 111EELSFK), and (4) from Elder Creek (SWAMP Station ID 111ELDRCR). 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 (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	12332	Region 1
Eel River HU, South Fork HA

Pollutant:	Aluminum
Final Listing Decision:	List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Sources:	Natural Sources
Expected TMDL Completion Date:	2021
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This listing applies to the mainstem South Fork Eel River in the South Fork Eel River HA. The listing does not include Elder Creek, or any other tributaries in the HA. 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 is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant: one for the South Fork Eel River (LOE 25377) which reflects impairment, and one for Elder Creek (LOE 25378) which does not reflect impaired conditions. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of placing the mainstem South Fork Eel River on the section 303(d) list as impaired by Aluminum 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) Six of the 37 Aluminum samples from the South Fork Eel River exceed the water quality objective and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. (4) Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, North Coast RWQCB staff conclude that the mainstem South Fork Eel River should be placed on the section 303(d) list for Aluminum impairment because applicable water quality standards are exceeded and a pollutant contributes to or causes the problem.

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 12332, Aluminum	Region 1
Eel River HU, South Fork HA

LOE ID:

25378

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 19 aluminum samples collected from Elder Creek 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 Elder Creek (SWAMP Station ID 111ELDRCR). Samples were collected from well-mixed flows in glides or riffles.

Temporal Representation:

Samples were collected from 19 site visits from February 2002 to June 2006. Most of the 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 (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 12332, Aluminum	Region 1
Eel River HU, South Fork HA

LOE ID:

25377

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:

Six of the 37 aluminum samples collected from the South Fork Eel River exceed the objective. Sample concentrations range from 3.46 to 3,400.00 ug/L. 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:

Temporal Representation:

At the Branscomb site, samples were collected from 13 site visits from February 2002 to April 2005. At the Benbow site, samples were collected from 4 site visits from February to June 2002. At the site downstream of Bull Creek, samples were collected from 23 site visits from March 2001 to June 2006. Most of the 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 (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	6804	Region 1
Eel River HU, South Fork HA

Pollutant:	Sedimentation/Siltation
Final Listing Decision:	List on 303(d) list (being addressed by USEPA approved TMDL)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	List on 303(d) list (being addressed by USEPA approved TMDL)(2006)
Revision Status	Original
Sources:	Erosion/Siltation \| Flow Alteration/Regulation/Modification \| Hydromodification \| Logging Road Construction/Maintenance \| Nonpoint Source \| Range Grazing-Riparian and/or Upland \| Removal of Riparian Vegetation \| Resource Extraction \| Silviculture
TMDL Name:	Eel River South Fork Sediment and Temperature TMDLs
TMDL Project Code:	663
Date TMDL Approved by USEPA:	12/16/1999
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for listing under Section 2.2 of the Listing Policy. Under this section of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status. The South Fork Eel River Total Maximum Daily Loads for Sediment and Temperature were established by US EPA on December 16, 1999. Based on the readily available information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of placing this water segment-pollutant combination in the Water Quality Limited Segments Being Addressed portion of the section 303(d) list.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	No new data were assessed for 2008. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available and are assessed.

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 6804, Sedimentation/Siltation	Region 1
Eel River HU, South Fork HA

LOE ID:

1679

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:

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

Data Reference:

Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Temporal Representation:

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

QA Info Missing

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	4506	Region 1
Eel River HU, South Fork HA

Pollutant:	Temperature, water
Final Listing Decision:	List on 303(d) list (being addressed by USEPA approved TMDL)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2006)
Revision Status	Original
Sources:	Erosion/Siltation \| Flow Alteration/Regulation/Modification \| Hydromodification \| Nonpoint Source \| Removal of Riparian Vegetation
TMDL Name:	Eel River South Fork Sediment and Temperature TMDLs
TMDL Project Code:	663
Date TMDL Approved by USEPA:	12/16/1999
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for listing under Section 2.2 of the Listing Policy. Under this section of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status. The South Fork Eel River Total Maximum Daily Loads for Sediment and Temperature were established by US EPA on December 16, 1999. Based on the readily available information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of placing this water segment-pollutant combination in the Water Quality Limited Segments Being Addressed portion of the section 303(d) list. This pollutant is also being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.2 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess temperature consistent with Listing Policy section 6.1.5.9. A large number of samples exceed the water quality objective. When compared to the 14.8 °C coho threshold, there were 4,184 exceedances out of 10,476 total samples taken over all the sampling years. When compared to the 17.0°C steelhead threshold there were 1,350 exceedances found. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) 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. At a minimum, 4,184 of 10,476 samples exceeded the Sullivan 14.8 °C coho evaluation guideline used to interpret the water quality objective and this exceeds the allowable frequency calculated from the equation in Table 4.2 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met.

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):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 4506, Temperature, water	Region 1
Eel River HU, South Fork HA

LOE ID:

1678

Pollutant:

Temperature, water

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

10476

Number of Exceedances:

4184

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

When the data was compared to the 14.8°C threshold for coho, there were 4,184 exceedances out of 10,476 total samples taken over all of the years at the sampling locations. When compared to the 17°C threshold for steelhead there were 1,350 exceedances found (Hawthorne Timber Company, 2003).

Data Reference:

Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Basin Plan: Temperature objectives for COLD interstate waters, WARM interstate waters, and Enclosed Bays and Estuaries are as specified in the "Water Quality Control Plan for Control of Temperature in the Coastal and Interstate Waters and Enclosed Bays of California" including any revisions thereto. A copy of this plan is included verbatim in the Appendix Section of this Plan. In addition, the following temperature objectives apply to surface waters: The natural receiving water temperature of intrastate waters shall not be altered unless it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Regional Water Board that such alteration in temperature does not adversely affect beneficial uses. At no time or place shall the temperature of any COLD water be increased by more than 5°F above natural receiving water temperature. At no time or place shall the temperature of WARM intrastate waters be increased more than 5°F above natural receiving water temperature.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)

Evaluation Guideline:

The guideline used was from Sullivan et al. (2000) Published Temperature Thresholds-Peer Reviewed Literature which includes reviewed sub-lethal and acute temperature thresholds from a wide range of studies, incorporating information from laboratory-based research, field observations, and risk assessment approaches. This report calculated the 7-day Mean (maximum value of the 7-day moving average of the daily mean temperature) upper threshold criterion for coho salmon as 14.8°C and for steelhead trout as 17.0°C. The risk assessment approach used by Sullivan et al. (2000) suggests that the 7-day average upper threshold of a 14.8°C for coho and 17.0°C for steelhead will reduce average growth 10% from optimum.

Guideline Reference:

Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)

Spatial Representation:

Data was collected in-stream from the Eel River. The sampling sites were located along the main stem of the South Fork Eel River, Indian Creek, Moody Creek, Anderson Creek, Piercy Creek, Standley Creek, Bear Pen Creek, Wildcat Creek, Hollow Tree Creek, Dutch Charlie Creek and Redwood Creek. A total of 10,476 sampling measurements were taken at 13 sampling locations from 1994 to 2003. In-stream and riparian measurements were taken at all monitoring locations.

Temporal Representation:

Data was recorded for 10 years, from 1994 through 2003. Water temperature data were recorded at ninety-minute intervals, generally from June until Mid-October. Stream temperatures were measured continuously with temperature data loggers (Onset Computer Corp. model HOBO-Temp and OST temperature loggers) in Class 1 streams throughout the property from 1994 to 2004. Hobo-temps allowed uninterrupted data collection to occur throughout the critical summer period.

Environmental Conditions:

The Eel River HU, South Fork HA is currently listed for temperature. The USEPA will develop a TMDL for Eel River, South Fork. Sediment and temperature TMDLs will be developed for the area tributary to and including the South Fork of the Eel River above Garberville and the area tributary to an including the South Fork of the Eel River below Garberville.

QAPP Information:

QA/QC Information Summary submitted. Installation of the temperature data logger (Onset Computer Corp. model HOBO-Temp and OST temperature loggers in Class 1 streams throughout the property devices occurred one day before the first day logged on the continuous temperature monitoring figures. This was done to allow the data loggers to reach equilibrium with the instream temperature regimes and to capture complete daily cycles. No information on equipment calibration, standard operating procedures or data protocols were included with the submittal.

QAPP Information Reference(s):