| Water Body Name: | Eel River HU, Middle Fork HA, Eden Valley and Round Valley HSAs |
| Water Body ID: | CAR1117104419980710113432 |
| Water Body Type: | River & Stream |
DECISION ID |
15741 |
Region 1 |
Eel River HU, Middle Fork HA, Eden Valley and Round Valley HSAs |
||
| 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 21 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 21 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): | |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 26312 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Ammonia as Nitrogen | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Aquatic Life Use: | Fish Migration | Fish Spawning | Freshwater Replenishment | Preservation of Rare & Endangered Species | Warm Freshwater Habitat | Wildlife Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 21 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | None of the 21 ammonia as nitrogen samples collected from Middle 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): All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - North Coast Region (Region 1) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | Per the National Recommended Water Quality Criteria (USEPA 2006): The 1-hour average concentration (acute criterion or CMC) of total ammonia nitrogen (in mg N/L) for freshwater where salmonid fish are present, which is not to be exceeded more than once every three years on average, is calculated using the following equation: CMC=0.275/(1+10^(7.204 - pH)) + 39.0/(1+10^(pH - 7.204)). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Office of Science and Technology | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the Middle Fork Eel River at Dos Rios (SWAMP Station ID 111MFKEEL). Samples were collected from well-mixed flows in glides or riffles. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected 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 |
10651 |
Region 1 |
Eel River HU, Middle Fork HA, Eden Valley and Round Valley HSAs |
||
| 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 186 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 186 samples exceeded the metal objectives, and this does not exceed the allowable frequency of 16 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): | |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 21524 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Arsenic | Cadmium | Chromium (total) | Copper | Lead | Mercury | Nickel | Selenium | Silver | Zinc | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 186 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | None of the 186 metal samples collected in the Middle Fork Eel River exceed the objectives. There were 18 to 21 samples collected for each of the 10 metal parameters. 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 Middle Fork Eel River at Dos Rios (SWAMP Station ID 111MFKEEL). Samples were collected from well-mixed flows in glides or riffles. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected 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 (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 |
12450 |
Region 1 |
Eel River HU, Middle Fork HA, Eden Valley and Round Valley HSAs |
||
| 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 21 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 21 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): | |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 25428 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Chloride | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Not Recorded | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 21 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | None of the 21 chloride samples collected in the Middle 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 Middle Fork Eel River at Dos Rios (SWAMP Station ID 111MFKEEL). Samples were collected from well-mixed flows in glides or riffles. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected 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 (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 |
10550 |
Region 1 |
Eel River HU, Middle Fork HA, Eden Valley and Round Valley HSAs |
||
| 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. Only 1 of the 21 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) One of the 21 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): | |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 21296 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Specific Conductivity | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 21 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | One of the 21 specific conductivity grab samples collected from the Middle 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 450 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 Middle Fork Eel River at Dos Rios (SWAMP Station ID 111MFKEEL). Samples were collected from well-mixed flows in glides or riffles. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected 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 |
12520 |
Region 1 |
Eel River HU, Middle Fork HA, Eden Valley and Round Valley HSAs |
||
| 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 21 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 21 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): | |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 25537 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Sulfates | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Not Recorded | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 21 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | None of the 21 sulfate samples collected in the Middle 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 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 Middle Fork Eel River at Dos Rios (SWAMP Station ID 111MFKEEL). Samples were collected from well-mixed flows in glides or riffles. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected 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 (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 |
12329 |
Region 1 |
Eel River HU, Middle Fork HA, Eden Valley and Round Valley HSAs |
||
| 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 of the Middle Fork Eel River in the Middle Fork HA, Eden Valley and Round Valley HSAs.
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. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of placing this water body-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) Two of the 18 Aluminum samples 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 water body-pollutant combination should be placed on the section 303(d) list 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. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 25374 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Aluminum | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 18 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 2 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Two of the 18 aluminum samples collected from the Middle Fork Eel River exceed the objective. Sample concentrations range from 5.78 to 2,548.00 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: | Samples were collected from the Middle Fork Eel River at Dos Rios (SWAMP Station ID 111MFKEEL). Samples were collected from well-mixed flows in glides or riffles. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected 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 |
6883 |
Region 1 |
Eel River HU, Middle Fork HA, Eden Valley and Round Valley HSAs |
||
| 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 |
| TMDL Name: | Middle Fork Eel River |
| TMDL Project Code: | 82 |
| Date TMDL Approved by USEPA: | 12/31/2003 |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | The entire Middle Fork Eel River Watershed was listed as sediment-impaired in 1994. The USEPA approved the "Middle Fork Eel River Total Maximum Daily Loads for Temperature and Sediment" in December 2003. For the 2008 303(d) List, the watershed was divided into an upper and lower section. The upper section includes the Wilderness HSA and the Black Butte River HSA. The lower section includes the Eden Valley HSA and the Round Valley HSA. This division was made in order to consider sediment data specific to individual HSAs.
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. 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 decision has not changed expect to explain the division of the Middle Fork Eel River Watershed into two waterbodies. |
| 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): | |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 1682 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Sedimentation/Siltation | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Not Specified | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Unspecified--This LOE is a placeholder to support a 303(d) listing decision made prior to 2006.. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | |||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | |||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | |||||
| Temporal Representation: | |||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | QA Info Missing | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
4434 |
Region 1 |
Eel River HU, Middle Fork HA, Eden Valley and Round Valley HSAs |
||
| 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: | Nonpoint Source | Removal of Riparian Vegetation |
| TMDL Name: | Eel River, Middle Fork Sediment and Temperature TMDLs |
| TMDL Project Code: | 664 |
| Date TMDL Approved by USEPA: | 12/31/2003 |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | The entire Middle Fork Eel River Watershed was listed as temperature-impaired in 1994. The USEPA approved the "Middle Fork Eel River Total Maximum Daily Loads for Temperature and Sediment" in December 2003. For the 2008 303(d) List, the watershed was divided into an upper and lower section. The upper section includes the Wilderness HSA and the Black Butte River HSA. The lower section includes the Eden Valley HSA and the Round Valley HSA. This division was made in order to consider sediment data specific to individual HSAs. The temperature data described in LOE 1681 was applied to the entire Middle Fork Eel River Watershed in 2006 and remains applicable to both sections of the watershed (i.e., all four HSAs) for the 2008 303(d) List.
This pollutant is 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 the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.9. A large number of samples exceed the water quality objective. 321 of 339 temperature measurements (total) exceeded the 14.8°C coho guideline and 17.0°C steelhead evaluation guidelines. 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. There were 321 of 339 temperature samples that exceeded the 14.8°C coho and 17.0°C steelhead evaluation guidelines 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 except to explain the division of the Middle Fork Eel River Watershed into two waterbodies and reflect that the watershed is being addressed by a USEPA approved TMDL. |
| 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): | |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 1681 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Temperature, water | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 339 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 321 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Not Specified | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | The data submitted was for the Middle fork of the Eel River. Three sampling locations were provided. There were a total of 339 samples taken at the three sampling locations from May 27 to September 16, 2003. 321 temperature samples exceeded the 14.8°C coho guideline and 17.0°C steelhead evaluation guideline (North Coast RWQCB, 2003c). | ||||
| 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 degrees F above natural receiving water temperature. At no time or place shall the temperature of WARM intrastate waters be increased more than 5 degrees 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 a 17.0°C for steelhead will reduce average growth 10% from optimum. | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | There were 3 sampling locations in the Middle Fork Eel River. These locations were: Middle Fork Eel near the mainstream at Rowland Bar, Middle Fork at Cable Creek, and Middle Fork near Dos Rios Bridge. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected hourly over the period of May 27 to September 16, 2003. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | The Middle Fork of the Eel River is currently listed for temperature. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | No QAPP provided. Data collected from the Mendocino County Water Agency. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||