| Water Body Name: | Lee Vining Creek |
| Water Body ID: | CAR6010003519980804142227 |
| Water Body Type: | River & Stream |
DECISION ID |
19221 |
Region 6 |
Lee Vining Creek |
||
| Pollutant: | Flow alterations |
| Final Listing Decision: | Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2010) |
| Revision Status | Revised |
| Reason for Delisting: | Applicable WQS attained; reason for recovery unspecified |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollution |
| Regional Board Staff Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.2 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero samples exceeded the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification for removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of 3893 samples exceeded the guideline and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.2 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that the original listing basis is faulty due to the fact that the listing was not for a pollutant. Additionally, minimum flow requirements are being implemented as mandated by Decision 1631 [Decision And Order Amending Water Right Licenses To Establish Fishery Protection Flows In Streams Tributary To Mono Lake And To Protect Public Trust Resources At Mono Lake And In The Mono Lake Basin, SWRCB, September 28, 1994] |
| Regional Board Staff Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are not being exceeded. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 31955 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Temperature, water | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 3893 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | None of the 3,893 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for temperature in this water body. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for temperature in Rush Creek (below Grant Lake) and Lee Vining Creek, Oct. 1999-Oct. 2008 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The natural receiving water temperature of all waters shall not be altered unless it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Regional Board that such an alteration in temperature does not adversely affect the water for beneficial uses.(Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region) | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | Inland Fishes of California (Moyle 1976) states that for rainbow trout the optimum range for growth and completion of most life stages is 13-21 degrees C (page 129). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Fish introductions in CA: History and impact on native fishes. Davis, CA: University of CA, Davis | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected at the following locations: -Lee Vining Creek, Upper- Just downstream from the diversion intake and at Road Ford. -Lee Vining Creek, Lower-Attached to staff gauge fence in the B1 Channel | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected daily from 10/10/1999 through 10/21/2008. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Data collection methodology clearly detailed on pages 20-29 in the report titled: Effects of Flow, Reservoir Storage,and Water Temperatures on Trout in Lower Rush and Lee Vining Creeks, Mono County, California (May 2009) Prepared by: Brad Shepard, Ross Ta | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 2837 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Flow alterations | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Testimonial Evidence | ||||
| Matrix: | Not Specified | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Wildlife Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Not Specified | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | The original basis for the listing of this water body was data and information contained in the 1993 Mono Basin Water Rights EIR. These data indicated that the long period of little or no flow in Lee Vining Creek, from which Los Angeles Department of Water and Power diverts water, resulted in losses to riparian vegetation and other deterioration of channel conditions.
As a result of Decision 1631 (SWRCB, 1994), minimum flows were mandated in Lee Vining Creek, and considerable restoration work was completed under the supervision of the Restoration Technical Committee at the direction of the El Dorado County Superior Court. Communication with State Board's Division of Water Rights staff (personal communication with Jim Canady, February 3, 2005), indicate that flow requirements are being implemented as mandated. Additionally, listing is not for a pollutant, and no pollutants have been identified. Regional Board staff is not aware of evidence to indicate beneficial use impacts related to this listing. |
||||
| 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 |
32090 |
Region 6 |
Lee Vining Creek |
||
| Pollutant: | Temperature, water |
| 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 Staff 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 3893 samples exceeds the water quality objective. Samples were collected daily from 10/10/1999 through 10/21/2008. This sampling frequency seems sufficient to establish baseline conditions (including diel, seasonal, annual and interannual variations in temperature) or to detect trends in the temperature regime if such trends exist. 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 3893 samples exceeded the 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 Staff 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. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 31955 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Temperature, water | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 3893 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | None of the 3,893 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for temperature in this water body. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for temperature in Rush Creek (below Grant Lake) and Lee Vining Creek, Oct. 1999-Oct. 2008 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The natural receiving water temperature of all waters shall not be altered unless it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Regional Board that such an alteration in temperature does not adversely affect the water for beneficial uses.(Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region) | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | Inland Fishes of California (Moyle 1976) states that for rainbow trout the optimum range for growth and completion of most life stages is 13-21 degrees C (page 129). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Fish introductions in CA: History and impact on native fishes. Davis, CA: University of CA, Davis | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected at the following locations: -Lee Vining Creek, Upper- Just downstream from the diversion intake and at Road Ford. -Lee Vining Creek, Lower-Attached to staff gauge fence in the B1 Channel | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected daily from 10/10/1999 through 10/21/2008. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Data collection methodology clearly detailed on pages 20-29 in the report titled: Effects of Flow, Reservoir Storage,and Water Temperatures on Trout in Lower Rush and Lee Vining Creeks, Mono County, California (May 2009) Prepared by: Brad Shepard, Ross Ta | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||