| Water Body Name: | Truckee River, Upper (below Christmas Valley) |
| Water Body ID: | CAR6341004220000220174338 |
| Water Body Type: | River & Stream |
DECISION ID |
31627 |
Region 6 |
Truckee River, Upper (below Christmas Valley) |
||
| Pollutant: | Toxicity |
| 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 lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. One 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 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. One of one samples exceeded the guideline 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 it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 32056 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Toxicity | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Toxicity | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | TOXICITY TESTING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | One sample was collected to evaluate sediment toxicity. The sample exhibited significant toxicity. The toxicity test included survival and growth of Hyalella azteca. One sample can have multiple toxicity test results but will be counted only once. One sample is defined as being collected on the same day at the same location with the same lab sample id (if provided). | ||||
| Data Reference: | Statewide Project Urban Pyrethroid Status Monitoring | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | 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. Region 6 Basin Plan. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | Toxicity is defined as a statistically significant effect in the sample exposure compared to the control using EPA-recommended hypothesis testing. For SWAMP data exceedances are counted using the significant effect code: S equals significant, SG equals significantly greater and SL equals significantly lower. If a sample has any one of these codes, it will be considered an exceedance. | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Methods for Measuring the Toxicity and Bioaccumulation of Sediment-associated Contaminants with Freshwater Invertebrates, Second Edition. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research and Development, Duluth, MI , U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water, Washington, DC EPA-600/R-99/064 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | The sample was collected at station 634SUP091 . | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The sample was collected in October 2006. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | All data was collected following the Standard Operating Procedures and Data Quality Objectives outlined in the SWAMP QAMP, (Puckett, 2002). QA data are included in submission. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
20022 |
Region 6 |
Truckee River, Upper (below Christmas Valley) |
||
| Pollutant: | Phosphorus |
| 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 (TMDL required list)(2010) |
| Revision Status | Revised |
| Sources: | Source Unknown |
| TMDL Name: | Lake Tahoe Nutrients/Sediment |
| TMDL Project Code: | 198 |
| Date TMDL Approved by USEPA: | 08/16/2011 |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Staff Conclusion: | This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle. 303(d) listing decisions made prior to 2006 were not held in an assessment database.
Regional Board conclusion: No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle; however, the previous conclusion has changed since the Lake Tahoe TMDL, which partly addresses the phosphorus impairment within this segment of the Upper Truckee River below Christmas Valley, was adopted after the 2010 Integrated Report. The Upper Truckee River (below Christmas Valley) is a tributary to Lake Tahoe. The primary source of phosphorus in the Lake Tahoe (and the Upper Truckee River) watershed is urban storm water runoff and phosphorus associated with eroding sediment on disturbed undeveloped lands. The Tahoe TMDL implementation plan identifies actions that resource management agencies, Lake Tahoe municipalities (El Dorado and Placer Counties, and the City of South Lake Tahoe) and California Department of Transportation (CalTrans) must take to reduce inputs of nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus) and fine sediment in urban runoff discharges. On the ground efforts required by the Lake Tahoe TMDL that focus on (1) stabilizing disturbed areas within the forested uplands, (2) restoring eroding stream channels, and (3) managing and treating urban uplands (e.g. street sweeping, installing and maintaining infiltration and stormwater treatment facilities) will also achieve pollutant load reductions in waters tributary to Lake Tahoe. Municipal Stormwater NPDES permits require Lake Tahoe municipalities and CalTrans to develop and implement comprehensive pollutant load reduction programs (PLRPs) to meet specified pollutant load reduction requirements. Expected implementation measures include a variety of alternative treatment options, roadway operation practices, and local ordinances to reduce average annual pollutant loads. These Lake Tahoe TMDL implementation efforts will also reduce inputs of phosphorus to this impaired segment of the Upper Truckee River. Maintenance activities and restoring small disturbed sites that are underway, or planned and expected, within the forested uplands of this watershed will also reduce or avoid increases in fine sediment and nutrient loads. Additionally, the Lake Tahoe TMDL also requires implementation of measures to control stationary sources of dust which help reduce pollutant loads of fine sediments. Implementation of these measures helps address the phosphorus loading that impairs Upper Truckee River, below Christmas Valley that is associated with these fine sediments from dust sources. Federal, State, and larger local restoration agencies have well defined multi objective restoration programs with established funding and developed restoration plans, which will help reduce the phosphorus loads that impact the Upper Truckee River below Christmas Valley. Detailed multi-agency planning and implementation for restoration work on disturbed channel reaches of the Upper Truckee River was initiated in 2002. The California Tahoe Conservancy (CTC) has completed the Lower West Side Upper Truckee River Project at the mouth of the river to remove fill placed during development of the Tahoe Keys subdivision. The CTC is also evaluating alternatives for restoring the Upper Truckee River Marsh, the conceptual plan and CEQA analysis have been completed. Beginning in 2008, the City of South Lake Tahoe constructed channel improvements adjacent to the Lake Tahoe Airport and completed the restoration effort in 2013. The project achieved better hydrologic function and connectivity of the channel and floodplain which has helped reduce sediment and nutrient pollutant loads within this reach of the Upper Truckee River. California Department of Parks and Recreation is working to address stream bank erosion by restoring portions of Upper Truckee River that flow through Lake Tahoe Golf Course. Tahoe Resource Conservation District is working with private property owners to construct stream channel improvements downstream of the Lake Tahoe Airport. The 2013 Implementation of the United States Forest Service - Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit's Upper Truckee River (Reach 5) stream restoration project has and will continue to address inputs of phosphorus that impact the Upper Truckee River, below Christmas Valley. The Project included 7,420 feet of new river channel, grading 5.6 acres of floodplain, revegetation of disturbed areas, sod harvest and placement, and abandoning, filling, and vegetating the existing eroding and incised channel. Further reduction in phosphorus loading will be achieved by implementing the fuels reduction activities planned within the Upper Truckee River watershed below Christmas Valley that are included in the South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration Project. Finally, the Lake Tahoe TMDL also requires treatment measures to control stationary sources of dust and organic soot from residential wood burning. Water Board and Nevada Division of Environmental Protectino (NDEP) staff expect these control measures will reduce the basinwide phosphorus load by about seven percent. Implementation of these measures helps address the phosphorus loading that impairs the Upper Truckee River below Christmas Valley that is associated with these fine sediments from dust sources. Pollutant load reductions within Upper Truckee River, below Christmas Valley will be tracked through implementation of detailed performance and compliance measures and assessment and reporting protocols included in the Lake Tahoe TMDL. The TMDL Management System project is establishing activity-based tracking and reporting requirements to assess activities that are expected to reduce pollutant loading from non-urban sources. The Lahontan Water Board and the NDEP will implement a Lake Tahoe TMDL Management System for managing, tracking, integrating and evaluating new information generated from TMDL implementation actions, effectiveness monitoring, research efforts, and other factors such as climate change and wildfires. The Management System is based on an adaptive management framework to (1) link load reduction effectiveness with project implementation monitoring to improve project design and to assess if actual environmental improvement is occurring as expected; (2) establish guidance and operation protocols for how new information will be incorporated into project designs and TMDL program implementation; (3) establish prioritized TMDL research needs to fill data gaps and reduce uncertainties, and (4) implement a process for updating and reporting pollutant load reduction estimates and tracking projects within the TMDL implementation timeline. The Lake Tahoe TMDL requires implementation, effectiveness, and status and trends monitoring. Tributary stream status and trends monitoring will track long-term changes in water quality conditions relative to established water quality standards or goals, and project-specific monitoring will be used to assess the efficacy of various implementation measures. Long-term water quality trends and pollutant load reduction tracking in Upper Truckee River, below Christmas Valley will be captured through the ongoing efforts of the Lake Tahoe Interagency Monitoring Program (LTIMP) whose primary objective is to monitor discharge, nutrient load, and sediment loads from representative streams that flow into Lake Tahoe. Nitrogen and phosphorus loading calculations are performed using the LTIMP flow and nutrient concentration database. LTIMP has monitored the Upper Truckee River and other tributaries to Lake Tahoe since 1988; this data is stored on the USGS website at http://wdr.water.usgs.gov/. |
| Regional Board Staff Decision Recommendation: | No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. 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. However, the final listing decision for this waterbody pollutant combination has changed for this listing cycle to "being addressed by a USEPA approved TMDL." This waterbody pollutant combination has been and continues to be addressed by implementation of the Lake Tahoe TMDL, which was approved by the USEPA on August 16, 2011. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 4656 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Phosphorus | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Not Recorded | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Not Specified | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Unspecified--This LOE is a placeholder to support a 303(d) listing decision made prior to 2006. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Placeholder reference 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): | |||||
DECISION ID |
20021 |
Region 6 |
Truckee River, Upper (below Christmas Valley) |
||
| Pollutant: | Iron |
| 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 | Original |
| Sources: | Source Unknown |
| Expected TMDL Completion Date: | 2019 |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Staff Conclusion: | Regional Board Conclusion:
This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303 (d) list in a previous listing cycle. No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows: 303(d) listing decisions made prior to 2006 were not held in an assessment database. The Regional Boards will update this decision when new data and information become available and are assessed. |
| Regional Board 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: | 4655 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Iron | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Not Recorded | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
| 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): | |||||
DECISION ID |
30347 |
Region 6 |
Truckee River, Upper (below Christmas Valley) |
||
| Pollutant: | 2, 6- diethylaniline | 2-chloro-4-isopropylamino-6-amino-s-triazine | Alachlor | Atrazine | Azinphos-methyl (Guthion) | Benefin | Butylate | Carbaryl | Carbofuran | Chlorpyrifos | Cyanazine | DDE (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene) | Dacthal | Diazinon | Dieldrin | Disulfoton | Dyfonate (Fonofos or Fonophos) | EPTC (Eptam, s-ethyl dipropylthiocarbamate) | Ethalfluralin | Ethoprop | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Linuron | Malathion | Methyl Parathion | Metolachlor | Metribuzin | Molinate | Napropamide | Parathion | Pebulate | Pendimethalin | Permethrin, total | Phorate | Prometon (Prometone) | Pronamide | Propachlor | Propanil (DCPA mono- and di-acid degrad) | Propargite | Simazine | Tebuthuron | Terbacil | Terbufos | Thiobencarb/Bolero | Triallate | Trifluralin |
| 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)(2010) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Staff Conclusion: | Regional Board Conclusion:
This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303 (d) list in a previous listing cycle. No new information was reviewed for this current assessment 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. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the 46 pesticides analyzed were detectable. Under the section 6.1.5.5, the applicable standards are presumed to be attained. 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 satisfy the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used do not satisfy the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. Samples were collected during four consecutive months and do not necessarily represent year round conditions. Sampling was done in 1994 and does not necessarily reflect current conditions. 3. None of the 46 pesticides were detectable during four sampling runs 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: | 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: | 26847 | ||||
| Pollutant: | 2, 6- diethylaniline | 2-chloro-4-isopropylamino-6-amino-s-triazine | Alachlor | Atrazine | Azinphos-methyl (Guthion) | Benefin | Butylate | Carbaryl | Carbofuran | Chlorpyrifos | Cyanazine | DDE (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene) | Dacthal | Diazinon | Dieldrin | Disulfoton | Dyfonate (Fonofos or Fonophos) | EPTC (Eptam, s-ethyl dipropylthiocarbamate) | Ethalfluralin | Ethoprop | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Linuron | Malathion | Methyl Parathion | Metolachlor | Metribuzin | Molinate | Napropamide | Parathion | Pebulate | Pendimethalin | Permethrin, total | Phorate | Prometon (Prometone) | Pronamide | Propachlor | Propanil (DCPA mono- and di-acid degrad) | Propargite | Simazine | Tebuthuron | Terbacil | Terbufos | Thiobencarb/Bolero | Triallate | Trifluralin | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Not Recorded | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | The California Department of Pesticide Regulation's online database includes data for the Upper Truckee River at South Lake Tahoe. These data were collected in May, June, July and August 1994 as part of the U.S. Geological Survey's
National Water Quality Assessment (NAWQA) program. None of the 46 pesticides analyzed in each of 4 samples were detected. |
||||
| Data Reference: | Department of Pesticide Regulation Database Records for the West Fork Carson River and Upper Truckee Rivers | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Documentation of water quality criteria for individual pollutants in Lines of Evidence for multipollutant datasets is not required, except for pollutants that exceed a standard or criterion. The Lahontan Basin Plan includes a narrative water quality objective for pesticides in surface waters that provides that: "Pesticide concentrations, individually or collectively, shall not exceed the lowest detectable leves, using the most recent detection procedures available." For waters designated for the Municipal and Domestic Supply beneficial use, the water quality objective references the California Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for pesticides. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | One station, Upper Truckee River at South Lake Tahoe, was sampled. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected on May 10, June 13, July 12, and August 8, 1994 and analyzed for the 46 listed pesticides. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | The Upper Truckee River is the largest tributary of Lake Tahoe in terms of flow. Due to the large size of Lake Tahoe and the long residence time of water in the lake (about 700 years), water quality in the Upper Truckee River does not directly influence the quality of the Truckee River downstream of Lake Tahoe. The Lahontan Basin Plan considers the two streams to be separate water bodies for planning purposes. The lower portion of the Upper Truckee River watershed includes the urbanized areas of Meyers and South Lake Tahoe. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The data meet USGS quality assurance requirements. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 26848 | ||||
| Pollutant: | 2, 6- diethylaniline | 2-chloro-4-isopropylamino-6-amino-s-triazine | Alachlor | Atrazine | Azinphos-methyl (Guthion) | Benefin | Butylate | Carbaryl | Carbofuran | Chlorpyrifos | Cyanazine | DDE (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene) | Dacthal | Diazinon | Dieldrin | Disulfoton | Dyfonate (Fonofos or Fonophos) | EPTC (Eptam, s-ethyl dipropylthiocarbamate) | Ethalfluralin | Ethoprop | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Linuron | Malathion | Methyl Parathion | Metolachlor | Metribuzin | Molinate | Napropamide | Parathion | Pebulate | Pendimethalin | Permethrin, total | Phorate | Prometon (Prometone) | Pronamide | Propachlor | Propanil (DCPA mono- and di-acid degrad) | Propargite | Simazine | Tebuthuron | Terbacil | Terbufos | Thiobencarb/Bolero | Triallate | Trifluralin | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Not Recorded | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | The California Department of Pesticide Regulation's online database includes data for the Upper Truckee River at South Lake Tahoe. These data were collected in May, June, July and August 1994 as part of the U.S. Geological Survey's
National Water Quality Assessment (NAWQA) program. None of the 46 pesticides analyzed in each of 4 samples were detected. |
||||
| Data Reference: | Department of Pesticide Regulation Database Records for the West Fork Carson River and Upper Truckee Rivers | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Documentation of water quality criteria for individual pollutants in Lines of Evidence for multipollutant datasets is not required, except for pollutants that exceed a standard or criterion. The Lahontan Basin Plan includes a narrative water quality objective for pesticides in surface waters that provides that: "Pesticide concentrations, individually or collectively, shall not exceed the lowest detectable leves, using the most recent detection procedures available." For waters designated for the Municipal and Domestic Supply beneficial use, the water quality objective references the California Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for pesticides. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | One station, Upper Truckee River at South Lake Tahoe, was sampled. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected on May 10, June 13, July 12, and August 8, 1994 and analyzed for the 46 listed pesticides. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | The Upper Truckee River is the largest tributary of Lake Tahoe in terms of flow. Due to the large size of Lake Tahoe and the long residence time of water in the lake (about 700 years), water quality in the Upper Truckee River does not directly influence the quality of the Truckee River downstream of Lake Tahoe. The Lahontan Basin Plan considers the two streams to be separate water bodies for planning purposes. The lower portion of the Upper Truckee River watershed includes the urbanized areas of Meyers and South Lake Tahoe. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The data meet USGS quality assurance requirements. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||