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

Supporting Information

Regional Board 1 - North Coast Region

Water Body Name:	Russian River HU, Upper Russian River HA, Ukiah HSA
Water Body ID:	CAR1143107119990615121503
Water Body Type:	River & Stream


DECISION ID	17505	Region 1
Russian River HU, Upper Russian River HA, Ukiah HSA

Pollutant:	Aldrin \| Atrazine \| Azinphos, Ethyl (Ethyl Guthion) \| Bolstar \| Carbofuran \| Chlordane \| Chlorothalonil \| Chlorpyrifos \| Chlorpyrifos, methyl \| Ciodrin \| Dacthal \| Demeton s \| Dichlofenthion \| Dichlorvos \| Dieldrin \| Dimethoate \| Dioxathion \| Dyfonate (Fonofos or Fonophos) \| Endrin \| Endrin Ketone \| Ethion \| Ethoprop \| Famphur \| Fenchlorphos \| Fenitrothion \| Fensulfothion \| Fenthion \| Glyphosate \| Heptachlor \| Heptachlor epoxide \| Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB \| Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), alpha \| Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), beta \| Leptophos \| Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) \| Merphos \| Methidathion \| Methoxychlor \| Methyl Parathion \| Mevinphos \| Molinate \| Naled \| Oxadiazon \| Oxychlordane \| Phorate \| Phosmet \| Phosphamidon \| Prometon (Prometone) \| Prometryn \| Propazine \| Secbumeton \| Simazine \| Simetryn \| Sulfotep \| Tedion \| Terbufos \| Terbuthylazine \| Terbutryn \| Tetrachlorvinphos \| Thiobencarb/Bolero \| Thionazin \| Tokuthion \| Toxaphene \| Trichlorfon \| Trichloronate \| beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) \| cis-Nonachlor \| delta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or delta-HCH) \| o,p'-DDD (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane)) \| o,p'-DDE (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene) \| p,p'-DDD (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane) \| p,p'-DDE \| p,p'-DDMU \| trans-Nonachlor
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples in LOE #30169 exceed the water quality objective.The pollutants in LOE #30032 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, 2 to 19 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 1950 samples for both LOEs, #30032 without criteria, or LOE #30169 with criteria, exceeded the water quality guidelines and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

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

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 17505, Multiple Pollutants	Region 1
Russian River HU, Upper Russian River HA, Ukiah HSA

LOE ID:

30169

Pollutant:

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

1950

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

None of the 1,950 pesticide samples collected in the mainstem Russian River 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, 2 to 19 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 mainstem Russian River at 3 locations as follows: (1) at Talmage (SWAMP Station ID 114RRTAL1), (2) downstream of the Ukiah Water Treatment Plant (SWAMP Station ID 114RRART1), and (3) at Russian River Estates (SWAMP Station ID 114RRRRES). Samples were collected from well-mixed flows in glides or riffles

Temporal Representation:

At the Talmage site, samples were collected over 21 site visits from June 2001 to June 2006. At the site downstream of the Ukiah WTP, samples were collected over 3 site visits from October 2004 to February 2005. At the Russian River Estates site, samples were collected over 2 site visits at each site during June 2001.

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 17505, Multiple Pollutants	Region 1
Russian River HU, Upper Russian River HA, Ukiah HSA

LOE ID:

30032

Pollutant:

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

1950

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Temporal Representation:

Environmental Conditions:

There are no known environmental conditions (e.g., seasonality, land use practices, fire events, storms, etc.) that are related to these data.

QAPP Information:

Quality control was conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (SWAMP 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	17502	Region 1
Russian River HU, Upper Russian River HA, Ukiah HSA

Pollutant:	Aldrin \| Atrazine \| Azinphos, Ethyl (Ethyl Guthion) \| Bolstar \| Carbofuran \| Chlordane \| Chlorothalonil \| Chlorpyrifos \| Chlorpyrifos, methyl \| Ciodrin \| Dacthal \| Demeton s \| Dichlofenthion \| Dichlorvos \| Dieldrin \| Dimethoate \| Dioxathion \| Dyfonate (Fonofos or Fonophos) \| Endrin \| Endrin Ketone \| Ethion \| Ethoprop \| Famphur \| Fenchlorphos \| Fenitrothion \| Fensulfothion \| Fenthion \| Glyphosate \| Heptachlor \| Heptachlor epoxide \| Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB \| Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), alpha \| Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), beta \| Leptophos \| Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) \| Merphos \| Methidathion \| Methoxychlor \| Methyl Parathion \| Mevinphos \| Molinate \| Naled \| Oxadiazon \| Oxychlordane \| Phorate \| Phosmet \| Phosphamidon \| Prometon (Prometone) \| Prometryn \| Propazine \| Secbumeton \| Simazine \| Simetryn \| Sulfotep \| Tedion \| Terbufos \| Terbuthylazine \| Terbutryn \| Tetrachlorvinphos \| Thiobencarb/Bolero \| Thionazin \| Tokuthion \| Toxaphene \| Trichlorfon \| Trichloronate \| beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) \| cis-Nonachlor \| delta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or delta-HCH) \| o,p'-DDD (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane)) \| o,p'-DDE (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene) \| p,p'-DDD (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane) \| p,p'-DDE \| p,p'-DDMU \| trans-Nonachlor
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples in LOE #30157 exceed the water quality objective.The pollutants in LOE #29967 do not have water quality objectives and, therefore, a decision could not be made. The samples were analyzed for 93 pesticides, pesticide constituents, isomers, or metabolites. For 93 of the pesticide analytes, 2 to 4 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 368 samples for both LOEs, #29967, without criteria, or LOE #30157 with criteria, exceeded the water quality guidelines and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

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

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 17502, Multiple Pollutants	Region 1
Russian River HU, Upper Russian River HA, Ukiah HSA

LOE ID:

30157

Pollutant:

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

368

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

None of the 368 pesticide samples collected in the West Fork Russian River exceed the objective as all of the samples were measured as non-detect. The samples were analyzed for 93 pesticides, pesticide constituents, isomers, or metabolites. For 93 of the pesticide analytes, 2 to 4 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:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

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

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected from the West Fork Russian River at Lake Mendocino Drive (SWAMP Station ID 114WFKRR1) in well-mixed flows in glides or riffles.

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected as grab samples during six site visits from June 2001 to April 2005.

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 17502, Multiple Pollutants	Region 1
Russian River HU, Upper Russian River HA, Ukiah HSA

LOE ID:

29967

Pollutant:

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

368

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:

The samples were collected from the West Fork Russian River at Lake Mendocino Drive (SWAMP Station ID 114WFKRR1) in well-mixed flows in glides or riffles.

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected as grab samples during six site visits from June 2001 to April 2005.

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	12338	Region 1
Russian River HU, Upper Russian River HA, Ukiah HSA

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

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the Section 303(d) List under Section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under Section 3.1, a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the 33 aluminum samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category (i.e., sufficient justification to not list). This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: (1) The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of Section 6.1.4 of the Policy. (2) The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of Section 6.1.5 of the Policy. (3) None of the 33 samples exceeded the aluminum objective, and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. (4) Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

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

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 12338, Aluminum	Region 1
Russian River HU, Upper Russian River HA, Ukiah HSA

LOE ID:

5767

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 4 aluminum samples collected in the West Fork Russian River exceeded 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): 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:

The samples were collected from the West Fork Russian River at Lake Mendocino Drive (SWAMP Station ID WFKRR1) in well-mixed flows in glides or riffles.

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected as grab samples during 4 site visits from June 2001 to April 2005.

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 12338, Aluminum	Region 1
Russian River HU, Upper Russian River HA, Ukiah HSA

LOE ID:

25384

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 29 aluminum samples collected from the Upper Mainstem Russian River exceed the objective. The samples were collected as part of the Surface Water Ambient Water Monitoring Program (SWAMP). The data are found in the SWAMP Summary Report for the North Coast Region for Years 2000-2006 (NCRWQCB 2008).

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Per the Basin Plan (NCRWQCB 2007): The Maximum Contaminant Level for aluminum is 1.0 mg/l (1,000 ug/L).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the mainstem Russian River at 4 locations as follows: (1) at Talmage (SWAMP Station ID 114RRTAL1), (2) downstream of the Ukiah Water Treatment Plant (SWAMP Station ID 114RRART1), (3) at Russian River Estates (SWAMP Station ID 114RRRRES), and (4) at Hopland (SWAMP Station ID 114RRHOP1). Samples were collected from well-mixed flows in glides or riffles.

Temporal Representation:

At the Talmage site, samples were collected over 21 site visits from June 2001 to June 2006. At the site downstream of the Ukiah WTP, samples were collected over 3 site visits from October 2004 to February 2005. At the Russian River Estates and Hopland sites, samples were collected over 2 site visits at each site during June 2001.

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	13290	Region 1
Russian River HU, Upper Russian River HA, Ukiah HSA

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

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the Section 303(d) List under Section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under Section 3.1, a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Combine, 0 of the 36 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 36 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 13290, Ammonia as Nitrogen	Region 1
Russian River HU, Upper Russian River HA, Ukiah HSA

LOE ID:

6308

Pollutant:

Ammonia as Nitrogen

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Aquatic Life Use:

Fish Migration | Fish Spawning | Preservation of Rare & Endangered Species | Warm Freshwater Habitat | Wildlife Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

The 1 ammonia sample from the West Fork Russian River does not exceed the evaluation guideline. The sample was collected as part of the Russian River First Flush sampling event. Data are summarized by Katznelson et al. (2003).

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

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

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:

The sample was collected from 1 site in the West Fork Russian River near Capella.

Temporal Representation:

The sample was collected on November 7, 2002.

Environmental Conditions:

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

QAPP Information:

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

QAPP Information Reference(s):

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 13290, Ammonia as Nitrogen	Region 1
Russian River HU, Upper Russian River HA, Ukiah HSA

LOE ID:

26332

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

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

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

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Temporal Representation:

At the Talmage site, samples were collected over 21 site visits from June 2001 to June 2006. At the site downstream of the Ukiah WTP, samples were collected over 3 site visits from October 2004 to February 2005. At the Russian River Estates and Hopland sites, samples were collected over 2 site visits at each site during June 2001.

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 13290, Ammonia as Nitrogen	Region 1
Russian River HU, Upper Russian River HA, Ukiah HSA

LOE ID:

6219

Pollutant:

Ammonia as Nitrogen

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Aquatic Life Use:

Fish Migration | Fish Spawning | Preservation of Rare & Endangered Species | Warm Freshwater Habitat | Wildlife Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

The 1 ammonia sample from Gibson Creek does not exceed the evaluation guideline. The sample was collected as part of the Russian River First Flush sampling event. Data are summarized by Katznelson et al. (2003).

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The sample was collected from 1 site in Gibson Creek at Gobbi Street in Ukiah.

Temporal Representation:

The sample was collected on November 7, 2002.

Environmental Conditions:

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

QAPP Information:

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

QAPP Information Reference(s):

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 13290, Ammonia as Nitrogen	Region 1
Russian River HU, Upper Russian River HA, Ukiah HSA

LOE ID:

26330

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

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

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 West Fork Russian River at Lake Mendocino Drive (SWAMP Station ID 114WRKRR1).

Temporal Representation:

Samples were collected over 6 site visits from June 2001 to April 2005. Site visits corresponded to fall, winter, spring, and early summer seasonal conditions.

Environmental Conditions:

There are no known environmental conditions (e.g., seasonality, land use practices, fire events, storms, etc.) that are related to these data.

QAPP Information:

Quality control was conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (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	10669	Region 1
Russian River HU, Upper Russian River HA, Ukiah HSA

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

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the Section 303(d) List under Section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under Section 3.1, a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the 270 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 270 samples exceeded the metal objectives, and this does not exceed the allowable frequency of 24 per the binomial distribution described in Section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. (4) Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

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

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 10669, Multiple Pollutants	Region 1
Russian River HU, Upper Russian River HA, Ukiah HSA

LOE ID:

21543

Pollutant:

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

230

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

None of the 230 metal samples collected in the mainstem Russian River exceed the objectives. For each of the 10 metal parameters samples, there were 200 samples each collected at the Talmage site and 3 samples each collected at the Ukiah Water Treatment Plant site. The samples were collected as part of the Surface Water Ambient Water Monitoring Program (SWAMP). The data are found in the SWAMP Summary Report for the North Coast Region for Years 2000-2006 (NCRWQCB 2008).

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

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

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

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

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the mainstem Russian River at 2 locations as follows: (1) at Talmage (SWAMP Station ID 114RRTAL1), and (2) downstream of the Ukiah Water Treatment Plant (SWAMP Station ID 114RRART1). 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)

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 10669, Multiple Pollutants	Region 1
Russian River HU, Upper Russian River HA, Ukiah HSA

LOE ID:

5757

Pollutant:

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 40 metals samples collected in the West Fork Russian River exceed the objectives. There were 4 samples collected for the analysis of 10 metal parameters. 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. 3-9.00): 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 6449: 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:

The samples were collected from the West Fork Russian River at Lake Mendocino Drive (SWAMP Station ID WFKRR1) in well-mixed flows in glides or riffles.

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected as grab samples during 4 site visits from June 2001 to April 2005.

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	12468	Region 1
Russian River HU, Upper Russian River HA, Ukiah HSA

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

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the Section 303(d) List under Section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under Section 3.2, a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the 35 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 35 samples exceeded the chloride evaluation guideline used to interpret the water quality objective, and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy. (4) Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

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

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 12468, Chloride	Region 1
Russian River HU, Upper Russian River HA, Ukiah HSA

LOE ID:

25447

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

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

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

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

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

Guideline Reference:

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

Spatial Representation:

Temporal Representation:

At the Talmage site, samples were collected over 21 site visits from June 2001 to June 2006. At the site downstream of the Ukiah WTP, samples were collected over 3 site visits from October 2004 to February 2005. At the Russian River Estates and Hopland sites, samples were collected over 2 site visits at each site during June 2001.

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 12468, Chloride	Region 1
Russian River HU, Upper Russian River HA, Ukiah HSA

LOE ID:

5747

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

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

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:

The chloride samples were collected from the West Fork Russian River at Lake Mendocino Drive (SWAMP Station ID WFKRR1) in well-mixed flows in a glide or riffle.

Temporal Representation:

The chloride samples were collected during six site visits from June 2001 to April 2005. The chloride samples were collected as grab samples.

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	13293	Region 1
Russian River HU, Upper Russian River HA, Ukiah HSA

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

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the Section 303(d) List under Sections 3.2 and 3.3 of the Listing Policy. Under Section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient information available to determine if it is appropriate to place this water segment-pollutant combination on the Section 303(d) List in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. Three of the 4 indicator bacteria (2 of the 2 E. Coli and 1 of the 2 total coliform) samples exceed the evaluation guideline used to interpret the water quality objective, and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 5 samples are needed for application of Table 3.2, and only 4 samples are available. This conclusion is also based on the staff findings that: (1) The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of Section 6.1.4 of the Policy. (2) Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

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

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 13293, Indicator Bacteria	Region 1
Russian River HU, Upper Russian River HA, Ukiah HSA

LOE ID:

6222

Pollutant:

Escherichia coli (E. coli)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Water Contact Recreation

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

The 1 E. coli sample collected at Gibson Creek exceeds the evaluation guideline. The sample concentrations is 6,900 MPN / 100 ml. The sample was collected as part of the Russian River First Flush sampling event. Data are summarized by Katznelson et al. (2003).

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

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

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

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

Guideline Reference:

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

Spatial Representation:

The sample was collected from 1 site in Gibson Creek at Gobbi Street in Ukiah.

Temporal Representation:

The sample was collected on November 7, 2002.

Environmental Conditions:

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

QAPP Information:

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

QAPP Information Reference(s):

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 13293, Indicator Bacteria	Region 1
Russian River HU, Upper Russian River HA, Ukiah HSA

LOE ID:

6223

Pollutant:

Total Coliform

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Water Contact Recreation

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

The 1 total coliform sample collected at Gibson Creek exceeds the evaluation guideline. The sample concentrations is 240,000 MPN / 100 ml. The sample was collected as part of the Russian River First Flush sampling event. Data are summarized by Katznelson et al. (2003).

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

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

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

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

Guideline Reference:

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

Spatial Representation:

The sample was collected from 1 site in Gibson Creek at Gobbi Street in Ukiah.

Temporal Representation:

The sample was collected on November 7, 2002.

Environmental Conditions:

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

QAPP Information:

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

QAPP Information Reference(s):

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 13293, Indicator Bacteria	Region 1
Russian River HU, Upper Russian River HA, Ukiah HSA

LOE ID:

6313

Pollutant:

Total Coliform

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Water Contact Recreation

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

The 1 total coliform sample collected in the West Fork Russian River does not exceed the evaluation guideline. The sample concentration is 10,000 MPN / 100 ml. The sample was collected as part of the Russian River First Flush sampling event. Data are summarized by Katznelson et al. (2003).

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

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

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

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

Spatial Representation:

The sample was collected from 1 site in the West Fork Russian River near Capella.

Temporal Representation:

The sample was collected on November 7, 2002.

Environmental Conditions:

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

QAPP Information:

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

QAPP Information Reference(s):

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 13293, Indicator Bacteria	Region 1
Russian River HU, Upper Russian River HA, Ukiah HSA

LOE ID:

6311

Pollutant:

Escherichia coli (E. coli)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Water Contact Recreation

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

The 1 E. coli sample collected in the West Fork Russian River exceeds the evaluation guideline. The sample concentration is 740 MPN / 100 ml. The sample was collected as part of the Russian River First Flush sampling event. Data are summarized by Katznelson et al. (2003).

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

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

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

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

Spatial Representation:

The sample was collected from 1 site in the West Fork Russian River near Capella.

Temporal Representation:

The sample was collected on November 7, 2002.

Environmental Conditions:

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

QAPP Information:

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

QAPP Information Reference(s):

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


DECISION ID	13292	Region 1
Russian River HU, Upper Russian River HA, Ukiah HSA

Pollutant:	Nitrate
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. The weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient information available to determine if it is appropriate to place this water segment-pollutant combination on the Section 303(d) List in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. None of the 1 nitrate samples exceed the evaluation guideline used to interpret the water quality objective, and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 2 samples is needed for application of Table 3.1, and only 1 sample is available. This conclusion is also based on the staff findings that: (1) The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of Section 6.1.4 of the Policy. (2) Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

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

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 13292, Nitrate	Region 1
Russian River HU, Upper Russian River HA, Ukiah HSA

LOE ID:

6221

Pollutant:

Nitrate

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

The 1 nitrate as nitrogen sample collected from Gibson Creek does not exceed the objective. The sample concentration was 0.8 mg/l. The sample was collected as part of the Russian River First Flush sampling event. Data are summarized by Katznelson et al. (2003).

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Per the Basin Plan (NCRWQCB 2007): The water quality objective for nitrate as nitrogen is 45 mg/l.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The sample was collected from 1 site in Gibson Creek at Gobbi Street in Ukiah.

Temporal Representation:

The sample was collected on November 7, 2002.

Environmental Conditions:

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

QAPP Information:

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

QAPP Information Reference(s):

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


DECISION ID	12492	Region 1
Russian River HU, Upper Russian River HA, Ukiah HSA

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

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the Section 303(d) List under Section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under Section 3.1, a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the 1,400 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 1,400 samples exceeded the PCB evaluation guideline used to interpret the water quality objective, and this does not exceed the allowable frequency of 141 per the binomial distribution described in Section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. (4) Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

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

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 12492, PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)	Region 1
Russian River HU, Upper Russian River HA, Ukiah HSA

LOE ID:

25472

Pollutant:

PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

1150

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

None of the 1,150 polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) analytes collected in the mainstem Russian River exceed the evaluation guideline. Each of the 23 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 mainstem Russian River at 2 locations as follows: (1) at Talmage (SWAMP Station ID 114RRTAL1), (2) downstream of the Ukiah Water Treatment Plant (SWAMP Station ID 114RRART1). 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)

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 12492, PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)	Region 1
Russian River HU, Upper Russian River HA, Ukiah HSA

LOE ID:

5809

Pollutant:

PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

250

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

None of the 250 polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) analytes collected in the West Fork Russian River exceed the evaluation guideline. Each of the 5 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:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected from the West Fork Russian River at Lake Mendocino Drive (SWAMP Station ID WFKRR1) in well-mixed flows in glides or riffles.

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected as grab samples during 5 site visits from June 2001 to April 2005.

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	12888	Region 1
Russian River HU, Upper Russian River HA, Ukiah HSA

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

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the Section 303(d) List under Section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under Section 3.1, a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Three of the 2,341 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) Three of the 2,341 samples exceed the pesticide water quality objective, and this does not exceed the allowable frequency of 275 per the binomial distribution described in Section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. (4) Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

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

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 12888, Pesticides	Region 1
Russian River HU, Upper Russian River HA, Ukiah HSA

LOE ID:

25636

Pollutant:

Disulfoton

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 21 disulfoton samples collected in the mainstem Russian River exceeds the evaluation guideline. Sample concentrations range from non-detect (with a reporting limit of 0.050 ug/l) to detected but not quantified with a concentration of at least 0.050 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 "Water Quality Criteria 1972" (USEPA 1973): The instantaneous maximum water quality criterion for disulfoton for the protection of freshwater aquatic life is 0.05 ug/l.

Guideline Reference:

National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Spatial Representation:

Temporal Representation:

Environmental Conditions:

There are no known environmental conditions (e.g., seasonality, land use practices, fire events, storms, etc.) that are related to these data.

QAPP Information:

Quality control was conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (SWAMP 2002).

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 12888, Pesticides	Region 1
Russian River HU, Upper Russian River HA, Ukiah HSA

LOE ID:

6224

Pollutant:

Diazinon

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

None of the 1 diazinon sample collected from Gibson Creek exceeds the evaluation guideline. The sample concentrations is 0.120 ug/l. The sample was collected as part of the Russian River First Flush sampling event. Data are summarized by Katznelson et al. (2003).

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

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

Guideline Reference:

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

Spatial Representation:

The sample was collected from 1 site in Gibson Creek at Gobbi Street in Ukiah.

Temporal Representation:

The sample was collected on November 7, 2002.

Environmental Conditions:

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

QAPP Information:

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

QAPP Information Reference(s):

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 12888, Pesticides	Region 1
Russian River HU, Upper Russian River HA, Ukiah HSA

LOE ID:

6314

Pollutant:

Diazinon

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

The 1 diazinon sample collected in the West Fork Russian River does not exceed the evaluation guideline. The sample concentrations is 0.06 ug/l. The sample was collected as part of the Russian River First Flush sampling event. Data are summarized by Katznelson et al. (2003).

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

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

Guideline Reference:

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

Spatial Representation:

The sample was collected from 1 site in the West Fork Russian River near Capella.

Temporal Representation:

The sample was collected on November 7, 2002.

Environmental Conditions:

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

QAPP Information:

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

QAPP Information Reference(s):

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


DECISION ID	13294	Region 1
Russian River HU, Upper Russian River HA, Ukiah HSA

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

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the Section 303(d) List under Section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under Section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. It is unknown if any of the phosphorus samples exceed the water quality objective as there is insufficient information available to determine exceedance. Specifically, the samples cannot be compared to the objective because diel samples for dissolved oxygen (DO), pH, and/or chlorophyll-a are not available. Nutrients such as phosphorus do not impair beneficial uses by themselves, or cause non-attainment of the objective. Rather, they cause indirect impacts through algal growth and extreme diel patterns for DO and pH, which then impair uses. Waterbody-specific factors such as riparian cover, flow conditions, and stream channel configuration also affect how nutrients are processed within the stream and play a large role in determining whether or not nuisance algal conditions will prevail. For these reasons, comparing a single nutrient value to the biostimulatory objective is not recommended. Instead, nutrient-related indicator parameters, such as diel measurements of DO, pH, and/or chlorophyll-a, should be evaluated to determine attainment of the objective and protection of beneficial uses. When nutrient-related indicator parameters exceed targets, nutrient concentrations will then be analyzed to determine whether phosphorus should be added to a possible listing under the 303(d) List. Therefore, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient information available to determine if it is appropriate to place this water segment-pollutant combination on the Section 303(d) List in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is also based on the staff findings that: (1) The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of Section 6.1.4 of the Policy. (2) Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

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

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 13294, Phosphorus	Region 1
Russian River HU, Upper Russian River HA, Ukiah HSA

LOE ID:

6310

Pollutant:

Phosphorus

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Aquatic Life Use:

Fish Migration | Fish Spawning | Preservation of Rare & Endangered Species | Warm Freshwater Habitat | Wildlife Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

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

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

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

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The sample was collected from 1 site in the West Fork Russian River near Capella.

Temporal Representation:

The sample was collected on November 7, 2002.

Environmental Conditions:

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

QAPP Information:

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

QAPP Information Reference(s):

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 13294, Phosphorus	Region 1
Russian River HU, Upper Russian River HA, Ukiah HSA

LOE ID:

6220

Pollutant:

Phosphorus

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Aquatic Life Use:

Fish Migration | Fish Spawning | Preservation of Rare & Endangered Species | Warm Freshwater Habitat | Wildlife Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

It is unknown whether the 1 phosphorus sample collected in Gibson Creek exceeds the objective as there is insufficient information available to determine exceedance. Specifically, the sample cannot be compared to the objective because diel samples for dissolved oxygen (DO), pH, and/or chlorophyll-a are not available. Nutrients, such as phosphorus, alone do not impair beneficial uses or cause non-attainment of the objective. Rather, they cause indirect impacts through algal growth and extreme diel patterns for DO and pH, which then impair uses. Waterbody-specific factors such as riparian cover, flow conditions, and stream channel configuration also affect how nutrients are processed within the stream and play a large role in determining whether or not nuisance algal conditions will prevail. For these reasons, comparing a single nutrient value to the biostimulatory objective is not recommended. Instead, nutrient-related indicator parameters, such as diel measurements of DO, pH, and/or chlorophyll-a, should be evaluated to determine attainment of the objective and protection of beneficial uses. When nutrient-related indicator parameters exceed targets, nutrient concentrations will then be analyzed to determine whether phosphorus should be added to a possible listing under the 303(d) List. The sample concentration is 0.70 mg/L. The sample was collected as part of the Russian River First Flush sampling event. Data are summarized by Katznelson et al. (2003).

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The sample was collected from 1 site in Gibson Creek at Gobbi Street in Ukiah.

Temporal Representation:

The sample was collected on November 7, 2002.

Environmental Conditions:

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

QAPP Information:

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

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	10568	Region 1
Russian River HU, Upper Russian River HA, Ukiah HSA

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

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the Section 303(d) List under Section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under Section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Three out of 36 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) Three of the 36 samples exceed the specific conductivity objective, and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy. (4) Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

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

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 10568, Specific Conductivity	Region 1
Russian River HU, Upper Russian River HA, Ukiah HSA

LOE ID:

5736

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:

Two of the 6 specific conductivity samples collected in the West Fork Russian River exceed the specific conductivity water quality objective. The samples ranged from 160 to 340 mS/cm2. The samples failed to meet the the 50% upper limit objective in 2001 and failed to be both the 50% and 90% upper limit objectives in 2004. 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. 3-8.00): The 90% upper limit specific conductance objective at 77 F is 320 micromhos (or mS/cm2). The 50% upper limit specific conductance objective at 77 F is 250 micromhos (or mS/cm2). The 90% and 50% upper limits represent the 90/50 percentile values of the monthly means for a calendar year. 90% or 50% or more of the values must be less than or equal to the upper limit.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The specific conductivity samples were collected from the West Fork Russian River at Lake Mendocino Drive (SWAMP Station ID WFKRR1) in well-mixed flows in glides and riffles.

Temporal Representation:

The specific conductivity samples were collected during 6 site visits from June 2001 to April 2005. The specific conductivity samples were collected as instantaneous values and do not represent diurnal 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)

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 10568, Specific Conductivity	Region 1
Russian River HU, Upper Russian River HA, Ukiah HSA

LOE ID:

21322

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

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

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

Temporal Representation:

At the Talmage site, samples were collected over 21 site visits from June 2001 to June 2006. At the site downstream of the Ukiah WTP, samples were collected over 3 site visits from October 2004 to February 2005. At the Russian River Estates and Hopland sites, samples were collected over 2 site visits at each site during June 2001.

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 10568, Specific Conductivity	Region 1
Russian River HU, Upper Russian River HA, Ukiah HSA

LOE ID:

6305

Pollutant:

Specific Conductivity

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

The 1 specific conductivity sample collected in the West Fork Russian River does exceed the specific conductivity water quality objective. The sample concentration is 330 mS/cm2. The sample was collected as part of the Russian River First Flush sampling event. Data are summarized by Katznelson et al. (2003).

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The sample was collected from 1 site in the West Fork Russian River near Capella.

Temporal Representation:

The sample was collected on November 7, 2002.

Environmental Conditions:

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

QAPP Information:

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

QAPP Information Reference(s):

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 10568, Specific Conductivity	Region 1
Russian River HU, Upper Russian River HA, Ukiah HSA

LOE ID:

6217

Pollutant:

Specific Conductivity

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

The 1 specific conductivity sample collected in Gibson Creek does not exceed the specific conductivity water quality objective. The sample concentration is 90 mS/cm2. The sample was collected as part of the Russian River First Flush sampling event. Data are summarized by Katznelson et al. (2003).

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The sample was collected from 1 site in Gibson Creek at Gobbi Street in Ukiah.

Temporal Representation:

The sample was collected on November 7, 2002.

Environmental Conditions:

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

QAPP Information:

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

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	12539	Region 1
Russian River HU, Upper Russian River HA, Ukiah HSA

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

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the Section 303(d) List under Section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under Section 3.2, a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the 35 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 35 samples exceed the sulfate evaluation guideline used to interpret the water quality objective, and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy. (4) Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

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

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 12539, Sulfates	Region 1
Russian River HU, Upper Russian River HA, Ukiah HSA

LOE ID:

5790

Pollutant:

Sulfates

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Not Recorded

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

None of the 6 sulfate samples collected in the West Fork Russian River exceed the evaluation guideline. The samples were collected as part of the Surface Water Ambient Water Monitoring Program (SWAMP). The data are found in the 5-Year Monitoring Report (NCRWQCB 2008).

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

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

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

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

Guideline Reference:

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

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected from the West Fork Russian River at Lake Mendocino Drive (SWAMP Station ID WFKRR1) in well-mixed flows in a glide or riffle.

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected as grab samples during six site visits from June 2001 to April 2005.

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 12539, Sulfates	Region 1
Russian River HU, Upper Russian River HA, Ukiah HSA

LOE ID:

25556

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

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

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

Guideline Reference:

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

Spatial Representation:

Temporal Representation:

At the Talmage site, samples were collected over 21 site visits from June 2001 to June 2006. At the site downstream of the Ukiah WTP, samples were collected over 3 site visits from October 2004 to February 2005. At the Russian River Estates and Hopland sites, samples were collected over 2 site visits at each site during June 2001.

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	13295	Region 1
Russian River HU, Upper Russian River HA, Ukiah HSA

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

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the Section 303(d) List under Section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under Section 3.2, a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the 6 total dissolved solids 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 6 samples exceed the pesticides water quality objective, and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy. (4) Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

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

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 13295, Total Dissolved Solids	Region 1
Russian River HU, Upper Russian River HA, Ukiah HSA

LOE ID:

5789

Pollutant:

Total Dissolved Solids

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 6 total dissolved solids (TDS) samples collected in the West Fork Russian River exceed the objective. The samples were collected as part of the Surface Water Ambient Water Monitoring Program (SWAMP). The data are found in the 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. 3-8.00): The 90% upper limit total dissolved solids objective is 170 mg/L. The 50% upper limit total dissolved solids objective is 150 mg/L. The 90% and 50% upper limits represent the 90/50 percentile values of the monthly means for a calendar year. 90% or 50% or more of the values must be less than or equal to the upper limit.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected from the West Fork Russian River at Lake Mendocino Drive (SWAMP Station ID WFKRR1) in well-mixed flows in glides and riffles.

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected as grab samples during 6 site visits from June 2001 to April 2005.

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	13296	Region 1
Russian River HU, Upper Russian River HA, Ukiah HSA

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

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the Section 303(d) List under Section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under Section 3.2, a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the 8 pH 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 8 samples exceed the pesticides water quality objective, and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy. (4) Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

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

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

USEPA Action (if applicable):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 13296, pH	Region 1
Russian River HU, Upper Russian River HA, Ukiah HSA

LOE ID:

6218

Pollutant:

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Aquatic Life Use:

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

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

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

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

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The sample was collected from 1 site in Gibson Creek at Gobbi Street in Ukiah.

Temporal Representation:

The sample was collected on November 7, 2002.

Environmental Conditions:

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

QAPP Information:

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

QAPP Information Reference(s):

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 13296, pH	Region 1
Russian River HU, Upper Russian River HA, Ukiah HSA

LOE ID:

6307

Pollutant:

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Aquatic Life Use:

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

The 1 pH sample collected in the West Fork Russian River does not exceed the pH water quality objective. The sample pH concentration is 7.5. The sample was collected as part of the Russian River First Flush sampling event. Data are summarized by Katznelson et al. (2003).

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

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

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The sample was collected from 1 site in the West Fork Russian River near Capella.

Temporal Representation:

The sample was collected on November 7, 2002.

Environmental Conditions:

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

QAPP Information:

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

QAPP Information Reference(s):

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 13296, pH	Region 1
Russian River HU, Upper Russian River HA, Ukiah HSA

LOE ID:

5735

Pollutant:

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Aquatic Life Use:

Fish Migration | Fish Spawning | Preservation of Rare & Endangered Species | Warm Freshwater Habitat | Wildlife Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

None of the 6 pH samples collected in the West Fork Russian River exceed the pH water quality objective. 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. 3-8.00): The maximum pH objective is 8.5. The minimum pH objective is 6.5.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The pH samples were collected from the West Fork Russian River at Lake Mendocino Drive (SWAMP Station ID WFKRR1) in well-mixed flows in glides or riffles.

Temporal Representation:

The pH samples were collected during six site visits from June 2001 to April 2005. The pH samples were collected as instantaneous values and do not represent diurnal 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	6231	Region 1
Russian River HU, Upper Russian River HA, Ukiah HSA

Pollutant:	Sedimentation/Siltation
Final Listing Decision:	List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2006)
Revision Status	Original
Sources:	Agriculture \| Channel Erosion \| Construction/Land Development \| Drainage/Filling Of Wetlands \| Erosion/Siltation \| Habitat Modification \| Highway Maintenance and Runoff \| Natural Sources \| Removal of Riparian Vegetation \| Resource Extraction \| Silviculture \| Streambank Modification/Destabilization
Expected TMDL Completion Date:	2019
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

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

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	No new data were assessed for 2008. The decision has not changed.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 6231, Sedimentation/Siltation	Region 1
Russian River HU, Upper Russian River HA, Ukiah HSA

LOE ID:

4780

Pollutant:

Sedimentation/Siltation

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Not Specified

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

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

Data Reference:

Placeholder reference pre-2006 303(d)

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Temporal Representation:

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Unspecified

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	5490	Region 1
Russian River HU, Upper Russian River HA, Ukiah HSA

Pollutant:	Temperature, water
Final Listing Decision:	List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2006)
Revision Status	Original
Sources:	Flow Alteration/Regulation/Modification \| Habitat Modification \| Hydromodification \| Nonpoint Source \| Removal of Riparian Vegetation \| Streambank Modification/Destabilization \| Upstream Impoundment
Expected TMDL Completion Date:	2019
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

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

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	No new data were assessed for 2008. The decision has not changed.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

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

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 5490, Temperature, water	Region 1
Russian River HU, Upper Russian River HA, Ukiah HSA

LOE ID:

4781

Pollutant:

Temperature, water

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Not Specified

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

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

Data Reference:

Placeholder reference pre-2006 303(d)

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Temporal Representation:

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Unspecified

QAPP Information Reference(s):