| Water Body Name: | Indian Creek (Alpine County) |
| Water Body ID: | CAR6322001020011213104836 |
| Water Body Type: | River & Stream |
DECISION ID |
19764 |
Region 6 |
Indian Creek (Alpine County) |
||
| Pollutant: | Fecal Coliform |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2010) |
| Revision Status | Revised |
| Sources: | Source Unknown |
| Expected TMDL Completion Date: | 2019 |
| 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.
Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. A total of 183 samples were used to evaluate compliance with Contact Recreation using 2 different but related water quality objectives for fecal coliform. One hundred and four of the 183 samples exceed the water quality objective of 40 cfu/100 mland 124 of 183 samples exceed the water quality objective of 30-day log mean of 20 cfu/100 ml. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of 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. A total of 183 samples were used to acces compliance with Contact Recreation using 2 different but related water quality objectives for fecal coliform. One hundred and four of the 183 samples exceed the water quality objective of 40 cfu/100 mland 124 of 183 samples exceed the water quality objective of 30-day geomean of 20 cfu/100 ml and this exceeds 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. |
| 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 removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 4625 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Pathogens | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Not Recorded | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Water Contact Recreation | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Not Specified | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Unspecified--This LOE is a placeholder to support a 303(d) listing decision made prior to 2006. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Placeholder reference pre-2006 303(d) | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Unspecified | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Placeholder reference pre-2006 303(d) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | Unspecified | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Placeholder reference pre-2006 303(d) | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Unspecified | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Unspecified | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Unspecified | ||||
| QAPP Information: | Unspecified | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 31800 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Fecal Coliform | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Water Contact Recreation | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 183 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 104 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Not Specified | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | One hundred and four (104) of the one hundered and eighty three (183) samples exceeded the Fecal Coliform objective | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for temperature, nutrients, and bacteria in Heavenly Valley Creek (USFS boundary to Trout Creek) and various water bodies in Alpine County, Jul 1980-Jun. 2010 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Fecal Coliform concentration shall not exceed more than 40/100 ml. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at SW-02 Indian Creek at Diversion, SW-03 Indian Creek downstream of 1st bridge, SW-04 Indian Creek upstream of 2nd bridge and SW-10 Indian Creek @ Springmeyer Ranch. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between January 2004 to June 2010. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | The samples were collected under the South Tahoe Public Utility District Laboratory Quality Assurance Program. Monitoring and Reporting Program NO. R6T-2004-0010. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 34882 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Fecal Coliform | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Water Contact Recreation | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 183 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 124 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Not Specified | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | One hundred and twenty-four of the one hundered and eighty three (183) samples exceeded the Fecal Coliform objective | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for temperature, nutrients, and bacteria in Heavenly Valley Creek (USFS boundary to Trout Creek) and various water bodies in Alpine County, Jul 1980-Jun. 2010 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The fecal coliform concentration during any 30-day period shall not exceed a log mean of 20/100 ml. Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at SW-02 Indian Creek at Diversion, SW-03 Indian Creek downstream of 1st bridge, SW-04 Indian Creek upstream of 2nd bridge and SW-10 Indian Creek @ Springmeyer Ranch. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between January 2004 to June 2010. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | The samples were collected under the South Tahoe Public Utility District Laboratory Quality Assurance Program. Monitoring and Reporting Program NO. R6T-2004-0010. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
32043 |
Region 6 |
Indian Creek (Alpine County) |
||
| Pollutant: | Boron |
| 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 3.1 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 sample exceeds 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. 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. The single sample did not 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 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 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 it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 34603 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Boron | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total Dissolved | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Not Specified | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | The sample collected did not exceed the evaluation guideline of 1000 ug/L. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for temperature, nutrients, and bacteria in Heavenly Valley Creek (USFS boundary to Trout Creek) and various water bodies in Alpine County, Jul 1980-Jun. 2010 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Lahontan Region Basin Plan (2011): Waters designated as MUN shall not contain concentrations of chemical constituents in excess of the maximum contaminant level (MCL) or secondary maximum contaminant level (SMCL) based upon drinking water standards specified in the following provisions of Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations which are incorporated by reference into this plan: Table 64431-A of Section 64431 (Inorganic Chemicals), Table 64431-B of Section 64431 (Fluoride), Table 64444-A of Section 64444 (Organic Chemicals), Table 64449-A of Section 64449 (Secondary Maximum Contaminant LevelsConsumer Acceptance Limits), and Table 64449-B of Section 64449 (Secondary Maximum Contaminant Levels-Ranges). | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | Notification levels (formerly called "action levels")are published by the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) for chemicals for which there is no drinking water MCL. Notification levels are based mainly on health effects -- in most cases an incremental cancer risk estimate of 10(-6) for carcinogens and a threshold toxicity limit for other constituents. As with MCLs, the ability to quantify the amount of the constituent in a water sample using readily available analytical methods may cause notification levels to be set at somewhat higher concentrations than purely health-based values. Notification levels are advisory to water suppliers. If a notification level is exceeded, local government notification is required and customer notification is recommended. At a higher level, called the response level, the drinking water source is recommended to be taken out of service. The criteria for boron is 1000 ug/L (1 mg/L). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 4, Chapter 15. Domestic Water Quality and Monitoring | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | One sample was collected from the L-1 station. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | One sample was collected on 7/30/2002. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Samples were collected by STPUD and analyzed using STPUD Laboratory quality assurance program. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
32044 |
Region 6 |
Indian Creek (Alpine County) |
||
| 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 Staff 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, consisting of 882 samples, is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the 882 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. 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 882 samples exceeded the 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 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: | 31726 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Nitrate | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 882 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Zero of the 882 samples exceeded the water quality objective for nitrate | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for temperature, nutrients, and bacteria in Heavenly Valley Creek (USFS boundary to Trout Creek) and various water bodies in Alpine County, Jul 1980-Jun. 2010 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan, Lahontan Basin, Objective for Municipal and Domestic Supply uses of inland surface waters states the following: waters shall not contain concentrations of inorganic chemicals in excess of the limits specified in California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Table 64431-A of section 64431 (Inorganic Chemicals). The maximum contaminant level listed in Table 64431-A for nitrate is 45.0 mg/L. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected at four locations in Indian Creek: SW-2 Indian Creek @ Diversion, SW-3 Indian Creek downstream of 1st bridge, SW-4 Indian Creek upstream of 2nd bridge, and SW-10 Indian Creek @ Springmeyer Ranch. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected from 1980 to 2010. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Samples were collected by STPUD and analyzed using STPUD Laboratory quality assurance program. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
32045 |
Region 6 |
Indian Creek (Alpine County) |
||
| Pollutant: | Nitrite |
| 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 3.1 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 840 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. 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 840 samples exceeded the 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 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: | 31725 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Nitrite | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 840 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Zero of the 840 samples collected exceeded the water quality objective for nitrite. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for temperature, nutrients, and bacteria in Heavenly Valley Creek (USFS boundary to Trout Creek) and various water bodies in Alpine County, Jul 1980-Jun. 2010 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan, Lahontan Basin, Objective for Municipal and Domestic Supply uses of inland surface waters states the following: waters shall not contain concentrations of inorganic chemicals in excess of the limits specified in California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Table 64431-A of section 64431 (Inorganic Chemicals). The maximum contaminant level listed in Table 64431-A for Nitrite as N is 1.0 mg/L. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected at four locations in Indian Creek: Indian Creek @ Diversion, Indian Creek downstream of 1st bridge, Indian Creek upstream of 2nd bridge, and Indian Creek @ Springmeyer Ranch. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected from 1983 to 2010. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Samples were collected by STPUD and analyzed using STPUD Laboratory quality assurance program. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
32046 |
Region 6 |
Indian Creek (Alpine County) |
||
| 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: | 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 3.1 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 243 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. 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 243 samples exceeded the 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 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: | 31724 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Nitrogen, ammonia (Total Ammonia) | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Fish Spawning | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 243 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Zero of the 243 samples exceed the water quality objective for un-ionized ammonia. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for temperature, nutrients, and bacteria in Heavenly Valley Creek (USFS boundary to Trout Creek) and various water bodies in Alpine County, Jul 1980-Jun. 2010 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Lahontan Basin Plan objective for un-ionized ammonia is a function of pH, temperature, and the presence of salmonids. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected at four locations in Indian Creek: Indian Creek @ Diversion, Indian Creek downstream of 1st bridge, Indian Creek upstream of 2nd bridge, and Indian Creek @ Springmeyer Ranch. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected from 2002 to 2010. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | samples were collected by STPUD and analyzed using STPUD Laboratory quality assurance program. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
32047 |
Region 6 |
Indian Creek (Alpine County) |
||
| 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 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 864 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. 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 864 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: | 34489 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Sulfates | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total Dissolved | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 864 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | None of the 864 samples exceeded the Secondary MCL's objective for Sulfates. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for temperature, nutrients, and bacteria in Heavenly Valley Creek (USFS boundary to Trout Creek) and various water bodies in Alpine County, Jul 1980-Jun. 2010 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Secondary Maximum Contaminant Levels (SMCLs) apply to ambient waters under the Los Angeles's Basin Plan's "Chemical Constituents" objective. The SMCL for Sulfates (SO4) is 250 mg/L. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
| Secondary Maximum Contaminant Levels and Compliance. CCR title 22 section 64449. | |||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the SW-02, SW-03, SW-04, and SW-10 stations. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected approximately once a month from July 1980 to June 2010. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Samples were collected by STPUD and analyzed using STPUD Laboratory quality assurance program. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
32049 |
Region 6 |
Indian Creek (Alpine County) |
||
| 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. Seven of the 944 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. 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. Seven of 944 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: | 31705 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Temperature, water | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 944 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 7 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seven of the 944 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for temperature in this water body. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for temperature, nutrients, and bacteria in Heavenly Valley Creek (USFS boundary to Trout Creek) and various water bodies in Alpine County, Jul 1980-Jun. 2010 | ||||
| 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. For waters designated WARM, water temperature shall not be altered by more than five degrees Fahrenheit above or below the natural temperature. For waters designated COLD, the temperature shall not be altered. | ||||
| 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 in this water body: Indian Creek @ Diversion Indian Creek downstream of 1st bridge Indian Creek upstream of 2nd bridge Indian Creek @ Springmeyer Ranch | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Samples collected between 7/8/1980 and 6/2/2010. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | South Tahoe Public Utility District Laboratory Quality Assurance Program by Terry Powers, Laboratory Director (March 30, 2009) | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
32048 |
Region 6 |
Indian Creek (Alpine County) |
||
| 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 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. The Lahontan Basin Plan's narrative pH objective is an antidegradation-based objejctive that requires that there be no change greater than 0.5 pH units in waters designated for COLD and WARM beneficial uses. ( A pH range of 6.5 to 8.5 units applies to "all other waters.") Listing Policy section 3.10 contains directions for assessment based on trends in water quality. Though the LOE (33846) associated with this decision finds that 24 of the 970 samples exceed the water quality objective, this can not be determined with certainty because baseline conditions (normal ambient pH) has not been established for this waterbody. As such, it is more accurate to report the use rating for this decision as insufficient information not fully supporting. Staff recommend some trend analysis be completed on this data set before next listing cycle to determine the normal ambient pH for this waterbody. 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 It can not be determined with certainty if 24 of the 970 samples exceed the water quality objective because the water quality objective requires that a normal ambient pH be established for this waterbody in order to determine protection of the COLD beneficial use. 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 it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. The normal ambient pH for this waterbody has not been established yet, so it is not possible to determine if this database contains exceedances or not. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 33846 | ||||
| Pollutant: | pH | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 970 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 24 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Numeric data generated from 970 minimums and maximums of pH data had 24 exceedences. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for temperature, nutrients, and bacteria in Heavenly Valley Creek (USFS boundary to Trout Creek) and various water bodies in Alpine County, Jul 1980-Jun. 2010 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | In fresh waters with designated beneficial uses of COLD or WARM, changes in normal ambient pH levels shall not exceed 0.5 pH units. For all other waters of the Region, the pH shall not be depressed below 6.5 nor raised above 8.5. The Regional Board recognizes that some waters of the Region may have natural pH levels outside of the 6.5 to 8.5 range. Compliance with the pH objective for these waters will be determined on a case-by-case basis. [There is no site specific objective for pH for this water body] | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following stations: SW-02, SW-03, SW-04, and SW-10. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected once a month from July 1980 to June 2010. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | SWAMP QAPP | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
32088 |
Region 6 |
Indian Creek (Alpine County) |
||
| Pollutant: | Chloride |
| Final Listing Decision: | List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
| Revision Status | Revised |
| Sources: | Source Unknown |
| Expected TMDL Completion Date: | 2025 |
| 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 lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 262 of 864 samples exceed the water quality objective, which based on the tributary rule, applies the site-specific objective (4.0 mg/L) for the East Fork of the Carson River for Indian Creek (Alpine County). Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of 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. 262 samples of the 862 exceed the objective and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy, which only allows for 144 exceedances for 864 observations. 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 be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are exceeded and a pollutant contributes to or causes the problem. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 34466 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Chloride | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 864 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 262 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Two-hundred and sixty-two of the 864 samples exceeded the recommended level of 250 mg/L. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for temperature, nutrients, and bacteria in Heavenly Valley Creek (USFS boundary to Trout Creek) and various water bodies in Alpine County, Jul 1980-Jun. 2010 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Chapter 2 of the Lahontan Region's Basin Plan states Indian Creek (Alpine County) as being tributary to EAST FORK CARSON RIVER and thus, the objective for EAST FORK CARSON RIVER applies to the Indian Creek (Alpine County) water body. The site-specific objective for Chloride in Lahontan Basin Plan Table 3-14 for EAST FORK CARSON RIVER is 4.0 mg/L. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the SW-02, SW-03, SW-04, and SW-10 stations. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected approximately once a month from July 1980 to June 2010. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Samples were collected by STPUD and analyzed using STPUD Laboratory quality assurance program. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
32089 |
Region 6 |
Indian Creek (Alpine County) |
||
| Pollutant: | Oxygen, Dissolved |
| Final Listing Decision: | List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
| Revision Status | Revised |
| Sources: | Source Unknown |
| Expected TMDL Completion Date: | 2025 |
| 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. 571 of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of 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. 571 of 824 samples exceed the objective and this exceeds 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 be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are exceeded and a pollutant contributes to or causes the problem. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 34074 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Oxygen, Dissolved | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 824 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 571 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Numeric data generated from 824 computed averages of Dissolved Oxygen data yielded 571 exceedences. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for temperature, nutrients, and bacteria in Heavenly Valley Creek (USFS boundary to Trout Creek) and various water bodies in Alpine County, Jul 1980-Jun. 2010 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | For waters with the beneficial uses of COLD, COLD with SPWN, WARM, and WARM with SPWN, the minimum dissolved oxygen concentration shall not be less than that specified in Table 3-6. COLD/SPAWN: 7-Day Mean: 9.5 mg/L | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the SW-02, SW-03, SW-04, and SW-10 stations. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected approximately twice a month from July 1980 to June 2010 and consequently consolidated into monthly samples. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Samples were collected by STPUD and analyzed using STPUD Laboratory quality assurance program. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
19716 |
Region 6 |
Indian Creek (Alpine County) |
||
| Pollutant: | Habitat 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 | Original |
| Reason for Delisting: | Flaws in original listing |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollution |
| Regional Board Staff Conclusion: | Regional Board conclusion: This pollutant was considered for removal on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle. No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:
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 was faulty due to the fact that the listing was not for a pollutant. |
| Regional Board Staff Decision Recommendation: | No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 2863 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Habitat alterations | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Testimonial Evidence | ||||
| Matrix: | Not Specified | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Not Specified | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | The habitat listing was based on best professional judgment (Department of Fish and Game staff in the 1980s pointed out riparian damage in West Fork Carson River watershed during field trip).
Habitat alteration is not for a pollutant; therefore, the habitat alteration listing will be removed. |
||||
| 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): | |||||