Final California 2014 and 2016 Integrated Report (303(d) List/305(b) Report)

Supporting Information

Regional Board 1 - North Coast Region

Water Body Name:	Eel River HU, North Fork HA, Lower North Fork Eel River Watershed
Water Body ID:	CAR1115006519980709161134
Water Body Type:	River & Stream


DECISION ID	44049	Region 1
Eel River HU, North Fork HA, Lower North Fork Eel River Watershed

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:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2012)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	Regional Water Board conclusion: This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) List in a previous Integrated Report cycle. No new information was reviewed for this current Integrated Report cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows: 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 #30102 exceed the water quality objective.The pollutants in LOE #29805 do not have water quality objectives and, therefore, a decision could not be made. The samples were analyzed for 13 pesticides, pesticide constituents, isomers, or metabolites. For each of the 13 pesticide analytes, 5 samples were collected. The samples were collected as part of the Surface Water Ambient Water Monitoring Program (SWAMP). The data are found in the 5-Year Monitoring Report (NCRWQCB 2008). Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 803 samples for both LOEs, #29805, without criteria, or LOE #30102 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:	This region was not assessed this cycle. All decisions have been carried over from the previous cycle and remain the same.

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.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 44049, Multiple Pollutants	Region 1
Eel River HU, North Fork HA, Lower North Fork Eel River Watershed

LOE ID:

29805

Pollutant:

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

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 65 pesticide samples collected in the North Fork Eel River exceed the objective as none of the samples exceed the detection limits. Samples were analyzed for 13 pesticides, pesticide constituents, isomers, or metabolites. For each of the 13 pesticide analytes, 5 samples were collected. The samples were collected as part of the Surface Water Ambient Water Monitoring Program (SWAMP). The data are found in the 5-Year Monitoring Report (NCRWQCB 2008).

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Per the Basin Plan (NCRWQCB 2007): No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no bioaccumulation of pesticide concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life. Waters designated for use as domestic or municipal supply shall not contain concentrations of pesticides in excess of the limiting concentrations set forth in California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 4, Chapter 15, Article 4, Section 64444, and listed in Table 3.2 of the Basin Plan.
No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of the pesticides assessed for this waterbody for the Municipal & Domestic Supply beneficial use could be found that meet the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the North Fork Eel River near Mina (SWAMP Station ID 111NFELMI). Samples were collected from well-mixed flows in glides or riffles.

Temporal Representation:

Samples were collected from 16 site visits from April 2001 to April 2005. Most of the site visits corresponded to fall, winter, spring and early summer seasonal conditions.

Environmental Conditions:

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

QAPP Information:

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

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 44049, Multiple Pollutants	Region 1
Eel River HU, North Fork HA, Lower North Fork Eel River Watershed

LOE ID:

30102

Pollutant:

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

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:

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 North Fork Eel River near Mina (SWAMP Station ID 111NFELMI). Samples were collected from well-mixed flows in glides or riffles.

Temporal Representation:

Samples were collected from 16 site visits from April 2001 to April 2005. Most of the site visits corresponded to fall, winter, spring and early summer seasonal conditions. .

Environmental Conditions:

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

QAPP Information:

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

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	38630	Region 1
Eel River HU, North Fork HA, Lower North Fork Eel River Watershed

Pollutant:	Aluminum
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2012)
Revision Status	Original
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. No new data were assessed during the current Integrated Report cycle, however it should be noted that the use rating and decision language have been altered to reflect that there are insufficient data available to make a listing determination. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category (i.e., sufficient justification to not list). This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: (1) The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of Section 6.1.4 of the Policy. (2) The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of Section 6.1.5 of the Policy. (3) One of the 14 samples exceeded the aluminum objective, and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met, as a minimum of either (A) 16 samples, or (B) greater than or equal 2 exceedances of the objective with less than 16 samples is needed for application of Table 3.1 (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:	This region was not assessed this cycle. All decisions have been carried over from the previous cycle and remain the same.

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.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 38630, Aluminum	Region 1
Eel River HU, North Fork HA, Lower North Fork Eel River Watershed

LOE ID:

25375

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:

One of the 14 aluminum samples collected from the North Fork Eel River exceed the objective. Sample concentrations range from 2.41 to 1,159.00 ug/L. The samples were collected as part of the Surface Water Ambient Water Monitoring Program (SWAMP). The data are found in the SWAMP Summary Report for the North Coast Region for Years 2000-2006 (NCRWQCB 2008).

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

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

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the North Fork Eel River near Mina (SWAMP Station ID 111NRELMI). Samples were collected from well-mixed flows in glides or riffles.

Temporal Representation:

Samples were collected from 16 site visits from April 2001 to April 2005. Most of the site visits corresponded to fall, winter, spring and early summer seasonal conditions.

Environmental Conditions:

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

QAPP Information:

Quality control was conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (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	36454	Region 1
Eel River HU, North Fork HA, Lower North Fork Eel River Watershed

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:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2012)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	Regional Water Board Conclusion: This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous Integrated Report cycle. No new information was reviewed for this current Integrated Report cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows: 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 142 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 142 samples exceeded the metal objectives, and this does not exceed the allowable frequency of 13 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:	This region was not assessed this cycle. All decisions have been carried over from the previous cycle and remain the same.

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.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 36454, Multiple Pollutants	Region 1
Eel River HU, North Fork HA, Lower North Fork Eel River Watershed

LOE ID:

21525

Pollutant:

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

142

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

None of the 142 metal samples collected in the North Fork Eel River exceed the objectives. There were 14 to 16 samples collected for each of the 10 metal parameters. The samples were collected as part of the Surface Water Ambient Water Monitoring Program (SWAMP). The data are found in the SWAMP Summary Report for the North Coast Region for Years 2000-2006 (NCRWQCB 2008).

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

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

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

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

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the North Fork Eel River near Mina (SWAMP Station ID 111NRELMI). Samples were collected from well-mixed flows in glides or riffles.

Temporal Representation:

Samples were collected from 16 site visits from April 2001 to April 2005. Most of the site visits corresponded to fall, winter, spring and early summer seasonal conditions.

Environmental Conditions:

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

QAPP Information:

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

QAPP Information Reference(s):

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


DECISION ID	38494	Region 1
Eel River HU, North Fork HA, Lower North Fork Eel River Watershed

Pollutant:	Chloride
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2012)
Revision Status	Original
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 to assess protection of the municipal and domestic supply (MUN) beneficial use. It should be noted that no new data were assessed this Integrated Report cycle, however the use rating and decision language was edit to reflect that there were an insufficient number of samples available to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if the MUN beneficial use is being protected. 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) Zero of sixteen samples exceed the objective, however this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met, as a minimum of either (1) 26 samples, or (2) greater than or equal to 5 exceedances of the objective with less than 26 samples is needed for application of Table 3.2. (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:	This region was not assessed this cycle. All decisions have been carried over from the previous cycle and remain the same.

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.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 38494, Chloride	Region 1
Eel River HU, North Fork HA, Lower North Fork Eel River Watershed

LOE ID:

25429

Pollutant:

Chloride

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Not Recorded

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

None of the 16 chloride samples collected in the North Fork Eel River exceed the evaluation guideline. The samples were collected as part of the Surface Water Ambient Water Monitoring Program (SWAMP). The data are found in the SWAMP Summary Report for the North Coast Region for Years 2000-2006 (NCRWQCB 2008).

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

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

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

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

Guideline Reference:

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

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the North Fork Eel River near Mina (SWAMP Station ID 111NRELMI). Samples were collected from well-mixed flows in glides or riffles.

Temporal Representation:

Samples were collected from 16 site visits from April 2001 to April 2005. Most of the site visits corresponded to fall, winter, spring and early summer seasonal conditions.

Environmental Conditions:

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

QAPP Information:

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

QAPP Information Reference(s):

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


DECISION ID	44542	Region 1
Eel River HU, North Fork HA, Lower North Fork Eel River Watershed

Pollutant:	Nitrogen, ammonia (Total Ammonia)
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2012)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	Note that the pollutant name was changed from "Ammonia as Nitrogen" to "Nitrogen, ammonia (Total Ammonia)". Regional Water Board conclusion: This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) List in a previous Integrated Report cycle. No new information was reviewed for this current Integrated Report cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows: This pollutant is being considered for placement on the Section 303(d) List under Section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under Section 3.1, a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the 16 ammonia as nitrogen samples exceed the objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the Section 303(d) List in the Water Quality Limited Segments category (i.e., sufficient justification to not list). This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: (1) The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of Section 6.1.4 of the Policy. (2) The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of Section 6.1.5 of the Policy. (3) None of the 16 samples exceed the water quality objective, and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. (4) Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	This region was not assessed this cycle. All decisions have been carried over from the previous cycle and remain the same.

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.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 44542, Nitrogen, ammonia (Total Ammonia)	Region 1
Eel River HU, North Fork HA, Lower North Fork Eel River Watershed

LOE ID:

26313

Pollutant:

Ammonia as Nitrogen

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Aquatic Life Use:

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

None of the 16 ammonia as nitrogen samples collected from North Fork Eel River exceed the objective. The samples were collected as part of the Surface Water Ambient Water Monitoring Program (SWAMP). The data are found in the SWAMP Summary Report for the North Coast Region for Years 2000-2006 (NCRWQCB 2008).

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

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

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

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

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the North Fork Eel River near Mina (SWAMP Station ID 111NFELMI). Samples were collected from well-mixed flows in glides or riffles.

Temporal Representation:

Samples were collected from 16 site visits from April 2001 to April 2005. Most of the site visits corresponded to fall, winter, spring and early summer seasonal conditions.

Environmental Conditions:

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

QAPP Information:

Quality control was conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (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	46461	Region 1
Eel River HU, North Fork HA, Lower North Fork Eel River Watershed

Pollutant:	Specific Conductivity
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2012)
Revision Status	Original
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 this section of the policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. It should be noted that in the Decision for this water body-pollutant pair from the 2010 Integrated Report cycle a Use Rating of "Fully Supporting" was selected, when it should have been "Insufficient Information" for the reason stated in (3) below. 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) Zero of sixteen samples exceed the 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 either (a) 26 samples, or (b) greater than or equal 5 exceedances of the MUN objective with less than 26 samples is needed for application of Table 3.2. (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:	This region was not assessed this cycle. All decisions have been carried over from the previous cycle and remain the same.

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.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 46461, Specific Conductivity	Region 1
Eel River HU, North Fork HA, Lower North Fork Eel River Watershed

LOE ID:

21300

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

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Per 22 CCR 64449: The recommended secondary Maximum Content Level (MCL) is 900 uS/cm.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the North Fork Eel River near Mina (SWAMP Station ID 111NRELMI). Samples were collected from well-mixed flows in glides or riffles.

Temporal Representation:

Samples were collected from 16 site visits from April 2001 to April 2005. Most of the site visits corresponded to fall, winter, spring and early summer seasonal conditions.

Environmental Conditions:

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

QAPP Information:

Quality control was conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (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	39079	Region 1
Eel River HU, North Fork HA, Lower North Fork Eel River Watershed

Pollutant:	Sulfates
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2012)
Revision Status	Original
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 to assess protection of the municipal and domestic supply (MUN) beneficial use. It should be noted that no new data were assessed this Integrated Report cycle, however the use rating and decision language was edit to reflect that there were an insufficient number of samples available to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if the MUN beneficial use is being protected. 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) Zero of 16 samples from the North Fork Eel River exceed the objective, however this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met, as a minimum of either (1) 26 samples, or (2) greater than or equal to 5 exceedances of the objective with less than 26 samples is needed for application of Table 3.2. (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:	This region was not assessed this cycle. All decisions have been carried over from the previous cycle and remain the same.

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.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 39079, Sulfates	Region 1
Eel River HU, North Fork HA, Lower North Fork Eel River Watershed

LOE ID:

25538

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

Data Reference:

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

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

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

Objective/Criterion Reference:

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

Evaluation Guideline:

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

Guideline Reference:

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

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected from the North Fork Eel River near Mina (SWAMP Station ID 111NFELMI). Samples were collected from well-mixed flows in glides or riffles.

Temporal Representation:

Samples were collected from 16 site visits from April 2001 to April 2005. Most of the site visits corresponded to fall, winter, spring and early summer seasonal conditions.

Environmental Conditions:

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

QAPP Information:

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

QAPP Information Reference(s):

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


DECISION ID	41560	Region 1
Eel River HU, North Fork HA, Lower North Fork Eel River Watershed

Pollutant:	Sedimentation/Siltation
Final Listing Decision:	List on 303(d) list (being addressed by USEPA approved TMDL)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	List on 303(d) list (being addressed by USEPA approved TMDL)(2012)
Revision Status	Original
Sources:	Erosion/Siltation \| Flow Alteration/Regulation/Modification \| Logging Road Construction/Maintenance \| Nonpoint Source \| Removal of Riparian Vegetation \| Silviculture
TMDL Name:	Eel River, North Fork Sediment and Temperature TMDLs
TMDL Project Code:	662
Date TMDL Approved by USEPA:	12/30/2002
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	Regional Water Board Conclusion: This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) List in a previous Integrated Report cycle. No new information was reviewed for this current Integrated Report cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows: The entire North Fork Eel River Watershed was listed as sediment-impaired in 1994. The USEPA approved the "North Fork Eel River Total Maximum Daily Loads for Sediment and Temperature" on December 30, 2002. For the 2008 303(d) List, the watershed was divided into Upper and Lower sections. The Upper North Fork Eel River Watershed is the area of the North Fork Eel River Watershed that drains to the North Fork Eel River north of the Six Rivers National Forest boundary with the River. The Lower Watershed is the area that drains into the North Fork Eel River south of the Six Rivers National Forest boundary with the River. The division was made in order to consider sediment data specific to individual areas of the watershed. This pollutant is being considered for listing under Section 2.2 of the Listing Policy. Under this section of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status. The Middle Fork Eel River Technical TMDLs for Sediment and Temperature were established by US EPA in December 2003. Based on the readily available information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of placing this water segment-pollutant combination in the Water Quality Limited Segments Being Addressed portion of the section 303(d) list.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	This region was not assessed this cycle. All decisions have been carried over from the previous cycle and remain the same.

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.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 41560, Sedimentation/Siltation	Region 1
Eel River HU, North Fork HA, Lower North Fork Eel River Watershed

LOE ID:

1680

Pollutant:

Sedimentation/Siltation

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Not Specified

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

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

Data Reference:

Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Temporal Representation:

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

QA Info Missing

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	42824	Region 1
Eel River HU, North Fork HA, Lower North Fork Eel River Watershed

Pollutant:	Temperature, water
Final Listing Decision:	List on 303(d) list (being addressed by USEPA approved TMDL)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	List on 303(d) list (being addressed by USEPA approved TMDL)(2012)
Revision Status	Original
Sources:	Flow Alteration/Regulation/Modification \| Removal of Riparian Vegetation
TMDL Name:	Eel River, North Fork Sediment and Temperature TMDLs
TMDL Project Code:	662
Date TMDL Approved by USEPA:	12/30/2002
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	Regional Water Board Conclusion: This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) List in a previous Integrated Report cycle. No new information was reviewed for this current Integrated Report cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows: The entire North Fork Eel River Watershed was listed as temperature-impaired in 1994. The USEPA approved the "North Fork Eel River Total Maximum Daily Loads for Sediment and Temperature" on December 30, 2002. For the 2010 303(d) List, the watershed was divided into Upper and Lower sections. The Upper North Fork Eel River Watershed is the area of the North Fork Eel River Watershed that drains to the North Fork Eel River north of the Six Rivers National Forest boundary with the River. The Lower Watershed is the area that drains into the North Fork Eel River south of the Six Rivers National Forest boundary with the River. The division was made in order to consider sediment data specific to individual areas of the watershed. The temperature data described in LOE 3664 was applied to the entire North Fork Eel River Watershed in 2006 and remains applicable to both sections of the watershed for the 2010 303(d) List. This pollutant is being considered for listing under Section 2.2 of the Listing Policy. Under this section of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status. The North Fork River Total Maximum Daily Loads for Sediment and Temperature were established by US EPA on December 30, 2002. Based on the readily available information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of placing this water segment-pollutant combination in the Water Quality Limited Segments Being Addressed portion of the Section 303(d) List.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	This region was not assessed this cycle. All decisions have been carried over from the previous cycle and remain the same.

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.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 42824, Temperature, water	Region 1
Eel River HU, North Fork HA, Lower North Fork Eel River Watershed

LOE ID:

3664

Pollutant:

Temperature, water

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Not Specified

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:

Unknown

Temporal Representation:

Unknown

Environmental Conditions:

Unknown

QAPP Information:

Unknown

QAPP Information Reference(s):