| Water Body Name: | Bishop Creek Canal |
| Water Body ID: | CAR6032000020020528152837 |
| Water Body Type: | River & Stream |
DECISION ID |
102441 |
Region 6 |
Bishop Creek Canal |
||
| Pollutant: | Alkalinity as CaCO3 |
| 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 CWA 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. Zero of five samples exceed the guideline for alkalinity. 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 CWA 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 five samples exceeded the guideline 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. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 98141 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Alkalinity as CaCO3 | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB6 Monitoring data for Bishop Creek Canal to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 5 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Alkalinity as CaCO3. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for the SWAMP RWB6 Monitoring (tissue and water). | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The National Recommended Water Quality Criteria for Alkalinity as CaCO3 for the protection of freshwater aquatic life is not less than 20000 ug/L. (National Recommended Water Quality Criteria 2016) | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Current as of 08/03/2016. | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site(s) (603BSP002) | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-09-29 and 2012-10-30 | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
DECISION ID |
76146 |
Region 6 |
Bishop Creek Canal |
||
| Pollutant: | Anthracene |
| 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)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Revised |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Staff Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA 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 that are both based on sediment samples. Zero of six samples exceed the sediment guideline for anthracene. 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 CWA 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 six samples exceeded the sediment 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. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 100377 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Anthracene | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends data for Bishop Creek Canal to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 5 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Anthracene . | ||||
| Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends. | ||||
| 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. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region) | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Anthrazene from MacDonald et al., 2000a which states that the probable effect concentration for Anthrazene is 845 ug/kg. (dw = Dry Weight) | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 (Station Codes: 603BSP002). | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2010-10-06 to 2014-10-08 | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 43875 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Anthracene | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Bishop Creek Canal to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Anthracene. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region). | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for anthracene is 845 ug/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Bishop Creek Canal was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Bishop Creek at East Line St - 603BSP002] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 9/17/2008. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
78665 |
Region 6 |
Bishop Creek Canal |
||
| Pollutant: | Arsenic |
| 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)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Revised |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Staff Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA 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 that are both based on sediment samples. Zero of four samples exceed the guideline for arsenic in sediment. 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 CWA 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 four samples exceeded the sediment 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. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 43994 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Arsenic | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Bishop Creek Canal to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Arsenic. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Lahontan Region). | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for arsenic is 33 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Bishop Creek Canal was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Bishop Creek at East Line St] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 9/17/2008. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 100265 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Arsenic | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 3 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends data for Bishop Creek Canal to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 3 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Arsenic . | ||||
| Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends. | ||||
| 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. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region) | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Arsenic from MacDonald et al., 2000a which states that the probable effect concentration for Arsenic is 33 mg/kg. (dw = Dry Weight) | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 (Station Codes: 603BSP002). | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2010-10-06 to 2013-10-09 | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
DECISION ID |
71905 |
Region 6 |
Bishop Creek Canal |
||
| Pollutant: | Benzo(a)anthracene |
| 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)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Revised |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Staff Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA 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 that are both based on sediment samples. Zero of six samples exceed the sediment guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA 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 six samples exceeded the sediment 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. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 44014 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Benzo(a)anthracene | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Bishop Creek Canal to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Benzo(a)anthracene. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Lahontan Region). | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for Benzo(a)anthracene is 1050 ug/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Bishop Creek Canal was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Bishop Creek at East Line St] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 9/17/2008. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 100297 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Benzo(a)anthracene | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends data for Bishop Creek Canal to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 5 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Benz(a)anthracene . | ||||
| Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends. | ||||
| 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. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region) | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Benz[a]anthrazene from MacDonald et al., 2000a which states that the probable effect concentration for Benz[a]anthrazene is 1050 ug/kg. (dw = Dry Weight) | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 (Station Codes: 603BSP002). | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2010-10-06 to 2014-10-08 | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
DECISION ID |
78307 |
Region 6 |
Bishop Creek Canal |
||
| Pollutant: | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) |
| 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)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Revised |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Staff Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA 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 that are both based on sediment samples. Zero of six samples exceed the sediment guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA 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 six samples exceeded the sediment 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. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 44016 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Bishop Creek Canal to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Benzo(a)pyrene. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Lahontan Region). | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for Benzo(a)Pyrene is 1450 ug/Kg dry weight (Macdonald et al. 2000) | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Bishop Creek Canal was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Bishop Creek at East Line St] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 9/17/2008. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 100351 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends data for Bishop Creek Canal to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 5 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Benzo(a)pyrene . | ||||
| Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends. | ||||
| 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. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region) | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Benzo[a]pyrene from MacDonald et al., 2000a which states that the probable effect concentration for Benzo[a]pyrene is 1450 ug/kg. (dw = Dry Weight) | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 (Station Codes: 603BSP002). | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2010-10-06 to 2014-10-08 | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
DECISION ID |
70933 |
Region 6 |
Bishop Creek Canal |
||
| Pollutant: | Bifenthrin |
| 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)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Revised |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Staff Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA 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 that are both based on sediment samples. Zero of six samples exceed the sediment guideline for bifenthrin. 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 CWA 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 six samples exceeded the sediment 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. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 43937 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Bifenthrin | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Bishop Creek Canal to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Bifenthrin. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region). | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for bifenthrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 0.43 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 0.43 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for bifenthrin from Amweg et al. (2005) and Amweg and Weston (2007). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5 | ||||
| Quality Assurance Project Plan for Mark West Creek, Sonoma County. | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Bishop Creek Canal was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Bishop Creek at East Line St - 603BSP002] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 9/17/2008. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 100352 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Bifenthrin | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends data for Bishop Creek Canal to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 5 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Bifenthrin . | ||||
| Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends. | ||||
| 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. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region) | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for bifenthrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 0.43 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 0.43 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for bifenthrin from Amweg et al. (2005) and Amweg and Weston (2007). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5 | ||||
| Whole-sediment toxicity identification evaluation tools for pyrethroid insecticides: I. piperonyl butoxide addition. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 26:2389-2396. | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 (Station Codes: 603BSP002). | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2010-10-06 to 2014-10-08 | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
DECISION ID |
102442 |
Region 6 |
Bishop Creek Canal |
||
| 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 CWA 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.
Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant that are both based on the same dataset assessed for MUN and AGR. Zero of four samples exceed the MUN guideline and zero of four samples exceed the AGR guideline for boron. 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 CWA 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 four samples exceed the MUN guideline and zero of four samples exceed the AGR guideline, 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. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 98120 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Boron | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Agricultural Supply | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB6 Monitoring data for Bishop Creek Canal to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Boron. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for the SWAMP RWB6 Monitoring (tissue and water). | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Waters designated as AGR shall not contain concentrations of chemical constituents in amounts that adversely affect the water for beneficial uses. Waters shall not contain concentrations of chemical consitituents in amounts that adversely affect the water for beneficial uses (Water Quality Control Plan, Lahontan Region). | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | Water Quality for Agriculture, published by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations in 1985, contains criteria protective of various agricultural uses of water, including irrigation of various types of crops and stock watering. These criteria were used to translate narrative water quality objectives for chemical constituents that prohibit chemicals in concentrations that would impair agricultural uses of water. The guideline for boron is 700 ug/L (0.7 mg/L). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Water Quality for Agriculture, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations - Irrigation and Drainage Paper No. 29, Rev 1, Rome (1985) | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site(s) (603BSP002) | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-09-29 and 2012-08-30 | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 97036 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Boron | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB6 Monitoring data for Bishop Creek Canal to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Boron. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for the SWAMP RWB6 Monitoring (tissue and water). | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Waters designated as MUN shall not contain concentrations of chemical constituents in amounts that adversely affect the water for beneficial uses (Water Quality Control Plan, Lahontan Region). | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | Drinking water notification levels are published by the Division of Drinking Water. Notification levels are for chemicals for which there is no drinking water MCL. If a notification level is exceeded, local government notification is required and customer notification is recommended. The notification level for Boron is 1 mg/L. | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Drinking Water Notification and Response Levels: An Overview | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site(s) (603BSP002) | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-09-29 and 2012-08-30 | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
DECISION ID |
79974 |
Region 6 |
Bishop Creek Canal |
||
| Pollutant: | Cadmium |
| 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)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Revised |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Staff Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA 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 that are based on sediment samples. Zero of four samples exceed the sediment guideline for cadmium. 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 CWA 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 four 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. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 100354 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Cadmium | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 3 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends data for Bishop Creek Canal to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 3 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Cadmium . | ||||
| Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends. | ||||
| 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. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region) | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Cadmium from MacDonald et al., 2000a which states that the probable effect concentration for Cadmium is 4.98 mg/kg. (dw = Dry Weight) | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 (Station Codes: 603BSP002). | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2010-10-06 to 2013-10-09 | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 44058 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Cadmium | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Bishop Creek Canal to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Cadmium. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Lahontan Region). | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for cadmium is 4.98 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Bishop Creek Canal was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Bishop Creek at East Line St] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 9/17/2008. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
72726 |
Region 6 |
Bishop Creek Canal |
||
| Pollutant: | Chlordane |
| 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)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Revised |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollution |
| Regional Board Staff Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA 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 that are both based on sediment samples. Zero of five samples exceed the sediment guideline for chlordane. 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 CWA 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 five samples exceeded the sediment 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. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 100357 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Chlordane | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends data for Bishop Creek Canal to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 4 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Chlordane . | ||||
| Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends. | ||||
| 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. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region) | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Chlordane from MacDonald et al., 2000a which states that the probable effect concentration for Chlordane is 17.6 ug/kg. (dw = Dry Weight) | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 (Station Codes: 603BSP002). | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2010-10-06 to 2013-10-09 | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 33731 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Chlordane | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Zero of 1 sample collected exceeded the criteria for chlordane concentration (Sum of trans-Chlordane, cis-Chlordane, cis-Nonachlor, trans-Nonachlor, and Oxychlordane). | ||||
| Data Reference: | Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water Quality Control Plan, Lahontan Region (2005): 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. Waters shall not contain substances in concentrations that result in deposition of material that causes nuisance or that adversely affects the water for beneficial uses. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The Probable Effect Concentration for Chlordane in freshwater sediments is 17.6 ug/kg. | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data were collected at the following station 603BSP002 (Bishop Creek at East Line St). | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | One sample was collected on 9/17/2008. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
102475 |
Region 6 |
Bishop Creek Canal |
||
| Pollutant: | Chloride |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
| Revision Status | Revised |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Staff Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA 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. Zero of five samples exceed the guideline for chloride. 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 CWA 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 five samples exceeded the guideline 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. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 98205 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Chloride | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB6 Monitoring data for Bishop Creek Canal to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 5 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Chloride. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for the SWAMP RWB6 Monitoring (tissue and water). | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The California Secondary MCL that is incorporated by reference in the Water Quality Control Plan, Lahontan Region for chloride is 250 mg/L (Water Quality Control Plan, 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 1 monitoring site(s) (603BSP002) | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-09-29 and 2012-10-30 | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
DECISION ID |
78309 |
Region 6 |
Bishop Creek Canal |
||
| Pollutant: | Chlorpyrifos |
| 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)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Revised |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Staff Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA 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 that are both based on sediment samples. Zero of five samples exceed the sediment guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA 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 five samples exceeded the sediment 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. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 43882 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Chlorpyrifos | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Bishop Creek Canal to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Chlorpyrifos. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region). | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for chlorpyrifos is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 1.77 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample (Amweg and Weston, 2007). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Whole-sediment toxicity identification evaluation tools for pyrethroid insecticides: I. piperonyl butoxide addition. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 26:2389-2396. | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Bishop Creek Canal was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Bishop Creek at East Line St - 603BSP002] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 9/17/2008. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 100362 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Chlorpyrifos | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends data for Bishop Creek Canal to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 4 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Chlorpyrifos . | ||||
| Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends. | ||||
| 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. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region) | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for chlorpyrifos is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 1.77 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample (Amweg and Weston, 2007). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Whole-sediment toxicity identification evaluation tools for pyrethroid insecticides: I. piperonyl butoxide addition. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 26:2389-2396. | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 (Station Codes: 603BSP002). | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2010-10-06 to 2013-10-09 | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
DECISION ID |
78725 |
Region 6 |
Bishop Creek Canal |
||
| Pollutant: | Chromium |
| 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)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Revised |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Staff Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA 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 that are both based on sediment samples. Zero of four samples exceed the sediment guideline for chromium. 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 CWA 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 four samples exceeded the sediment 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. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 100389 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Chromium | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 3 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends data for Bishop Creek Canal to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 3 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Chromium . | ||||
| Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends. | ||||
| 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. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region) | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Chromium from MacDonald et al., 2000a which states that the probable effect concentration for Chromium is 111 mg/kg. (dw = Dry Weight) | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 (Station Codes: 603BSP002). | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2010-10-06 to 2013-10-09 | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 44084 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Chromium | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Bishop Creek Canal to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Chromium. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Lahontan Region). | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for chromium is 111 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Bishop Creek Canal was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Bishop Creek at East Line St] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 9/17/2008. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
78308 |
Region 6 |
Bishop Creek Canal |
||
| Pollutant: | Chrysene (C1-C4) |
| 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)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Revised |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Staff Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA 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 that are both based on sediment samples. Zero of six samples exceed the sediment guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA 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 six samples exceeded the sediment 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. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 100384 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Chrysene (C1-C4) | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends data for Bishop Creek Canal to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 5 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Chrysene . | ||||
| Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends. | ||||
| 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. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region) | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Chrysene from MacDonald et al., 2000a which states that the probable effect concentration for Chrysene is 1290 ug/kg. (dw = Dry Weight) | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 (Station Codes: 603BSP002). | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2010-10-06 to 2014-10-08 | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 43877 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Chrysene (C1-C4) | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Bishop Creek Canal to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Chrysene. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region). | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | In freshwater sediments the probable effects level (predictive of sediment toxicity) for Chrysene is 1290 ug/Kg dry weight (Macdonald et al. 2000) | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Bishop Creek Canal was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Bishop Creek at East Line St - 603BSP002] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 9/17/2008. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
79975 |
Region 6 |
Bishop Creek Canal |
||
| Pollutant: | Copper |
| 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)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Revised |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Staff Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA 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 that are both based on sediment samples. Zero of four samples exceed the sediment guideline for copper. 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 CWA 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 four samples exceeded the sediment 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. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 100385 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Copper | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 3 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends data for Bishop Creek Canal to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 3 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Copper . | ||||
| Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends. | ||||
| 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. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region) | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Copper from MacDonald et al., 2000a which states that the probable effect concentration for Copper is 149 mg/kg. (dw = Dry Weight) | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 (Station Codes: 603BSP002). | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2010-10-06 to 2013-10-09 | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 44121 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Copper | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Bishop Creek Canal to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Copper. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Lahontan Region). | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for copper is 149 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Bishop Creek Canal was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Bishop Creek at East Line St] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 9/17/2008. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
78726 |
Region 6 |
Bishop Creek Canal |
||
| Pollutant: | Cyfluthrin |
| 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)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Revised |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Staff Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA 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 that are both based on sediment samples. Zero of five samples exceed the sediment guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA 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 five samples exceeded the sediment 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. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 100390 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Cyfluthrin | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends data for Bishop Creek Canal to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 4 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Cyfluthrin, total . | ||||
| Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends. | ||||
| 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. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region) | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for cyfluthrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 1.1 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 1.1 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for cyfluthrin from Amweg et al. (2005). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 (Station Codes: 603BSP002). | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2010-10-06 to 2013-10-09 | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 43912 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Cyfluthrin | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Bishop Creek Canal to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Cyfluthrin, total. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region). | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for cyfluthrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 1.1 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 1.1 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for cyfluthrin from Amweg et al. (2005). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Bishop Creek Canal was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Bishop Creek at East Line St - 603BSP002] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 9/17/2008. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
77955 |
Region 6 |
Bishop Creek Canal |
||
| Pollutant: | Cyhalothrin, Lambda |
| 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)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Revised |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Staff Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA 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 that are both based on sediment samples. Zero of six samples exceed the sediment guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA 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 six samples exceeded the sediment 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. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 100325 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Cyhalothrin, Lambda | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends data for Bishop Creek Canal to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 5 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Cyhalothrin, Total lambda- . | ||||
| Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends. | ||||
| 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. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region) | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for lambda-cyhalothrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 0.44 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 0.44 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for lambda-cyhalothrin from Amweg et al. (2005). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 (Station Codes: 603BSP002). | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2010-10-06 to 2014-10-08 | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 43942 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Cyhalothrin, Lambda | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Bishop Creek Canal to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Cyhalothrin, lambda, total. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region). | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for lambda-cyhalothrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 0.44 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 0.44 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for lambda-cyhalothrin from Amweg et al. (2005). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Bishop Creek Canal was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Bishop Creek at East Line St - 603BSP002] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 9/17/2008. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
77956 |
Region 6 |
Bishop Creek Canal |
||
| Pollutant: | Cypermethrin |
| 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)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Revised |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Staff Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA 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 that are both based on sediment samples. Zero of five samples exceed the sediment guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA 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 five samples exceeded the sediment 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. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 43902 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Cypermethrin | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Bishop Creek Canal to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Cypermethrin, total. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region). | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for cypermethrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 0.3 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 0.3 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for cypermethrin from Maund et al. (2002). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Partitioning, bioavailability, and toxicity of the pyrethroid insecticide cypermethrin in sediments. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 21:9-15 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Bishop Creek Canal was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Bishop Creek at East Line St - 603BSP002] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 9/17/2008. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 100329 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Cypermethrin | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends data for Bishop Creek Canal to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 4 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Cypermethrin, Total . | ||||
| Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends. | ||||
| 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. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region) | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for cypermethrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 0.3 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 0.3 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for cypermethrin from Maund et al. (2002). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Partitioning, bioavailability, and toxicity of the pyrethroid insecticide cypermethrin in sediments. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 21:9-15 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 (Station Codes: 603BSP002). | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2010-10-06 to 2013-10-09 | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
DECISION ID |
78204 |
Region 6 |
Bishop Creek Canal |
||
| Pollutant: | DDD (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane) |
| 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)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Revised |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Staff Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA 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 that are both based on sediment samples. Zero of five samples exceed the sediment guideline for DDD. 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 CWA 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 five samples exceeded the sediment 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. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 100332 | ||||
| Pollutant: | DDD (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane) | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends data for Bishop Creek Canal to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 4 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for DDD (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane) . | ||||
| Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends. | ||||
| 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. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region) | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Sum DDD from MacDonald et al., 2000a which states that the probable effect concentration for Sum DDD is 28 ug/kg. (dw = Dry Weight) | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 (Station Codes: 603BSP002). | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2010-10-06 to 2013-10-09 | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 32301 | ||||
| Pollutant: | DDD (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane) | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | The single sample collected did not exceed the water quality guideline. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Waters shall not contain concentrations of chemical constituents in amounts that adversely affect the water for beneficial uses. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The Probable Effect Concentration for Sum DDD in freshwater sediments is 28.0 ug/kg. | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data were collected at the following station: 603BSP002-Bishop Creek at East Line St | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | One sample was collected in 2008. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
80019 |
Region 6 |
Bishop Creek Canal |
||
| Pollutant: | DDE (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene) |
| 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)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Revised |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Staff Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA 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 that are both based on sediment samples. Zero of five samples exceed the sediment guideline for DDE. 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 CWA 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 five] 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. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 32302 | ||||
| Pollutant: | DDE (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene) | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | The single sample collected did not exceed the water quality guideline. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Waters shall not contain concentrations of chemical constituents in amounts that adversely affect the water for beneficial uses. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The Probable Effect Concentration for Sum DDE in freshwater sediments is 31.3 ug/kg. | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data were collected at the following station: 603BSP002-Bishop Creek at East Line St | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | One sample was collected in 2008. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 100440 | ||||
| Pollutant: | DDE (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene) | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends data for Bishop Creek Canal to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 4 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for DDE (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene) . | ||||
| Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends. | ||||
| 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. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region) | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Sum DDE from MacDonald et al., 2000a which states that the probable effect concentration for Sum DDE is 31.3 ug/kg. (dw = Dry Weight) | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 (Station Codes: 603BSP002). | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2010-10-06 to 2013-10-09 | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
DECISION ID |
78243 |
Region 6 |
Bishop Creek Canal |
||
| Pollutant: | DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) |
| 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)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Revised |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Staff Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Four lines of evidence, three which assess DDT sediment data and one which assesses Total DDT sediment data, are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of six samples exceed the sediment guideline for DDT; 0 of 4 samples exceed the sediment guideline for Total DDT. 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 CWA 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 six samples exceeded the sediment guideline for DDT and 0 of 4 samples exceed the sediment guideline for Total DDT 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. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 32304 | ||||
| Pollutant: | DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | The single sample collected did not exceed the water quality guideline. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Waters shall not contain concentrations of chemical constituents in amounts that adversely affect the water for beneficial uses. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The Probable Effect Concentration for Total DDT in freshwater sediments is 572 ug/kg. | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data were collected at the following station: 603BSP002-Bishop Creek at East Line St | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | One sample was collected in 2008. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 100364 | ||||
| Pollutant: | DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends data for Bishop Creek Canal to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 4 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) . | ||||
| Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends. | ||||
| 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. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region) | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Sum DDT from MacDonald et al., 2000a which states that the probable effect concentration for Sum DDT is 62.9 ug/kg. (dw = Dry Weight) | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 (Station Codes: 603BSP002). | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2010-10-06 to 2013-10-09 | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 32303 | ||||
| Pollutant: | DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | The single sample collected did not exceed the water quality guideline. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Waters shall not contain concentrations of chemical constituents in amounts that adversely affect the water for beneficial uses. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The Probable Effect Concentration for Sum DDT in freshwater sediments is 62.9 ug/kg. | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data were collected at the following station: 603BSP002-Bishop Creek at East Line St | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | One sample was collected in 2008. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 100408 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Total DDT (sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD) | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends data for Bishop Creek Canal to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 4 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Total DDT (sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD) . | ||||
| Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends. | ||||
| 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. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region) | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Total DDTs from MacDonald et al., 2000a which states that the probable effect concentration for Total DDTs is 572 ug/kg. (dw = Dry Weight) | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 (Station Codes: 603BSP002). | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2010-10-06 to 2013-10-09 | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
DECISION ID |
80020 |
Region 6 |
Bishop Creek Canal |
||
| Pollutant: | Deltamethrin |
| 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)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Revised |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Staff Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA 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 that are both based on sediment samples. Zero of four samples exceed the sediment guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA 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 four samples exceeded the sediment 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. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 43932 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Deltamethrin | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Bishop Creek Canal to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Deltamethrin. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region). | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for deltamethrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 0.79 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 0.79 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for deltamethrin from Amweg et al. (2005). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Bishop Creek Canal was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Bishop Creek at East Line St - 603BSP002] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 9/17/2008. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 100342 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Deltamethrin | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 3 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends data for Bishop Creek Canal to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 3 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Deltamethrin . | ||||
| Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends. | ||||
| 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. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region) | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for deltamethrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 0.79 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 0.79 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for deltamethrin from Amweg et al. (2005). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 (Station Codes: 603BSP002). | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2010-10-06 to 2012-10-09 | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
DECISION ID |
78205 |
Region 6 |
Bishop Creek Canal |
||
| Pollutant: | Diazinon |
| 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)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Revised |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Staff Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA 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 that are both based on sediment samples. Zero of five samples exceed the sediment guideline for diazinon. 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 CWA 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 five samples exceeded the sediment 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. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 100430 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Diazinon | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends data for Bishop Creek Canal to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 4 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Diazinon . | ||||
| Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends. | ||||
| 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. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region) | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for diazinon is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 11 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 11 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for diazinon from Ding et al. (2011). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Toxicity of Sediment-Associated Pesticides to Chironomus dilutus and Hyalella azteca. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 61:83¿92. | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 (Station Codes: 603BSP002). | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2010-10-06 to 2013-10-09 | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 44254 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Diazinon | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Bishop Creek Canal to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Diazinon. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region). | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for diazinon is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 11 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 11 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for diazinon from Ding et al. (2011). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Toxicity of Sediment-Associated Pesticides to Chironomus dilutus and Hyalella azteca. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 61:83¿92. | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Bishop Creek Canal was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Bishop Creek at East Line St - 603BSP002] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 9/17/2008. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
80203 |
Region 6 |
Bishop Creek Canal |
||
| Pollutant: | Dieldrin |
| 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)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Revised |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Staff Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA 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 that are both based on sediment samples. Zero of five samples exceed the sediment guideline for dieldrin. 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 CWA 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 five samples exceeded the sediment 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. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 43811 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Dieldrin | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Bishop Creek Canal to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Dieldrin. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Lahontan Basin Plan's water quality objective for toxicity states: all waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce determental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for dieldrin is 61.8 ug/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Bishop Creek Canal was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Bishop Creek at East Line St] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 9/17/2008. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 100371 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Dieldrin | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends data for Bishop Creek Canal to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 4 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Dieldrin . | ||||
| Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends. | ||||
| 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. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region) | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Dieldrin from MacDonald et al., 2000a which states that the probable effect concentration for Dieldrin is 61.8 ug/kg dw. (dw = Dry Weight) | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 (Station Codes: 603BSP002). | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2010-10-06 to 2013-10-09 | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
DECISION ID |
78617 |
Region 6 |
Bishop Creek Canal |
||
| Pollutant: | Endrin |
| 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)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Revised |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Staff Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA 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 that are both based on sediment samples. Zero of five samples exceed the sediment guideline for endrin. 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 CWA 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 five samples exceeded the sediment 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. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 43821 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Endrin | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Bishop Creek Canal to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Endrin. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Lahontan Basin Plan's water quality objective for toxicity states: all waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce determental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for endrin is 207 ug/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Bishop Creek Canal was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Bishop Creek at East Line St] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 9/17/2008. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 100374 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Endrin | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends data for Bishop Creek Canal to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 4 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Endrin . | ||||
| Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends. | ||||
| 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. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region) | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Endrin from MacDonald et al., 2000a which states that the probable effect concentration for Endrin is 207 ug/kg. (dw = Dry Weight) | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 (Station Codes: 603BSP002). | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2010-10-06 to 2013-10-09 | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
DECISION ID |
78311 |
Region 6 |
Bishop Creek Canal |
||
| Pollutant: | Esfenvalerate/Fenvalerate |
| 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)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Revised |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Staff Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA 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 that are both based on sediment samples. Zero of five samples exceed the sediment guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA 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 five samples exceeded the sediment 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. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 44296 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Esfenvalerate/Fenvalerate | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Bishop Creek Canal to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Esfenvalerate/Fenvalerate, total. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region). | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for esfenvalerate/fenvalerate is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 1.5 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 1.5 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for esfenvalerate/fenvalerate from Amweg et al. (2005). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Bishop Creek Canal was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Bishop Creek at East Line St - 603BSP002] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 9/17/2008. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 100263 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Esfenvalerate/Fenvalerate | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends data for Bishop Creek Canal to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 4 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Esfenvalerate/Fenvalerate, Total . | ||||
| Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends. | ||||
| 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. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region) | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for esfenvalerate/fenvalerate is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 1.5 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 1.5 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for esfenvalerate/fenvalerate from Amweg et al. (2005). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 (Station Codes: 603BSP002). | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2010-10-06 to 2013-10-09 | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
DECISION ID |
78244 |
Region 6 |
Bishop Creek Canal |
||
| Pollutant: | Fenpropathrin |
| 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)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Revised |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Staff Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA 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 that are both based on sediment samples. Zero of six samples exceed the sediment guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA 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 six samples exceeded the sediment 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. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 44335 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Fenpropathrin | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Bishop Creek Canal to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Fenpropathrin. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region). | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for fenpropathrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 1 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 1 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for fenpropathrin from Ding et al. ( 2011). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Toxicity of Sediment-Associated Pesticides to Chironomus dilutus and Hyalella azteca. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 61:83¿92. | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Bishop Creek Canal was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Bishop Creek at East Line St - 603BSP002] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 9/17/2008. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 100266 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Fenpropathrin | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends data for Bishop Creek Canal to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 5 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Fenpropathrin . | ||||
| Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends. | ||||
| 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. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region) | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for fenpropathrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 1 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 1 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for fenpropathrin from Ding et al. ( 2011). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Toxicity of Sediment-Associated Pesticides to Chironomus dilutus and Hyalella azteca. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 61:83¿92. | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 (Station Codes: 603BSP002). | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2010-10-06 to 2014-10-08 | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
DECISION ID |
103468 |
Region 6 |
Bishop Creek Canal |
||
| Pollutant: | Fipronil |
| 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 CWA 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 that consists of a single sediment sample. Zero of one samples exceed the sediment guideline for fipronil. 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 CWA 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 one samples exceeded the sediment 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. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 100270 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Fipronil | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends data for Bishop Creek Canal to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 1 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Fipronil . | ||||
| Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends. | ||||
| 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. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region) | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for fipronil is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 0.13 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample (Maul et al. 2008). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Effect of sediment-associated pyrethroids, fipronil, and metabolites on Chironomus tentans growth rate, body mass, condition index, immobilization, and survival. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 27(12):2582-2590. | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 (Station Codes: 603BSP002). | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2014-10-08 to 2014-10-08 | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
DECISION ID |
103469 |
Region 6 |
Bishop Creek Canal |
||
| Pollutant: | Fipronil Sulfide |
| 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 CWA 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. Zero of one samples exceed the sediment guideline for fipronil sulfide. 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 CWA 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 one samples exceeded the sediment 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. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 100415 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Fipronil Sulfide | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends data for Bishop Creek Canal to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 1 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Fipronil Sulfide . | ||||
| Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends. | ||||
| 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. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region) | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for fipronil sulfide is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 0.16 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample (Maul et al. 2008). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Effect of sediment-associated pyrethroids, fipronil, and metabolites on Chironomus tentans growth rate, body mass, condition index, immobilization, and survival. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 27(12):2582-2590. | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 (Station Codes: 603BSP002). | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2014-10-08 to 2014-10-08 | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
DECISION ID |
103470 |
Region 6 |
Bishop Creek Canal |
||
| Pollutant: | Fipronil Sulfone |
| 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 CWA 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. Zero of two samples exceed the sediment guideline for fipronil sulfone. 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 CWA 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 two samples exceeded the sediment 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. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 100269 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Fipronil Sulfone | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends data for Bishop Creek Canal to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 2 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Fipronil Sulfone . | ||||
| Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends. | ||||
| 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. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region) | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for fipronil sulfone is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 0.12 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample (Maul et al. 2008). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Effect of sediment-associated pyrethroids, fipronil, and metabolites on Chironomus tentans growth rate, body mass, condition index, immobilization, and survival. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 27(12):2582-2590. | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 (Station Codes: 603BSP002). | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2013-10-09 to 2014-10-08 | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
DECISION ID |
78245 |
Region 6 |
Bishop Creek Canal |
||
| Pollutant: | Fluoranthene |
| 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)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Revised |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Staff Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA 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 that are both based on sediment samples. Zero of six samples exceed the sediment guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA 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 six samples exceeded the sediment 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. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 100271 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Fluoranthene | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends data for Bishop Creek Canal to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 5 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Fluoranthene . | ||||
| Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends. | ||||
| 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. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region) | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Fluoranthene from MacDonald et al., 2000a which states that the probable effect concentration for Fluoranthene is 2230 ug/kg. (dw = Dry Weight) | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 (Station Codes: 603BSP002). | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2010-10-06 to 2014-10-08 | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 43879 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Fluoranthene | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Bishop Creek Canal to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Fluoranthene. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region). | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | In freshwater sediments the probable effects level (predictive of sediment toxicity) for Fluoranthene is 2,230 ug/Kg dry weight (Macdonald et al. 2000) | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Bishop Creek Canal was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Bishop Creek at East Line St - 603BSP002] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 9/17/2008. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
78246 |
Region 6 |
Bishop Creek Canal |
||
| Pollutant: | Fluorene |
| 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)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Revised |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Staff Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA 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 that are both based on sediment samples. Zero of six samples exceed the sediment guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA 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 six samples exceeded the sediment 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. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 43891 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Fluorene | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Bishop Creek Canal to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Fluorene. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region). | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for fluorene is 536 ug/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Bishop Creek Canal was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Bishop Creek at East Line St - 603BSP002] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 9/17/2008. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 100273 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Fluorene | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends data for Bishop Creek Canal to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 5 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Fluorene . | ||||
| Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends. | ||||
| 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. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region) | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Fluorene from MacDonald et al., 2000a which states that the probable effect concentration for Fluorene is 536 ug/kg. (dw = Dry Weight) | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 (Station Codes: 603BSP002). | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2010-10-06 to 2014-10-08 | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
DECISION ID |
102478 |
Region 6 |
Bishop Creek Canal |
||
| Pollutant: | Fluoride |
| 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 CWA 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. Zero of five samples exceed the guideline for fluoride. 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 CWA 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 five samples exceeded the guideline 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. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 98124 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Fluoride | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB6 Monitoring data for Bishop Creek Canal to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 5 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Fluoride. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for the SWAMP RWB6 Monitoring (tissue and water). | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The California Maximum Contaminant Level for Fluoride incorporated by reference in the Water Quality Control Plan, Lahontan Region is 2 mg/L (Water Quality Control Plan, 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 1 monitoring site(s) (603BSP002) | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-09-29 and 2012-10-30 | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
DECISION ID |
102481 |
Region 6 |
Bishop Creek Canal |
||
| Pollutant: | Iron |
| 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 CWA 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 that are each based on a single sample assessed for COLD and MUN. Zero of one samples exceed the MUN guideline and zero of one samples exceed the COLD guideline for iron. 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 CWA 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 one samples exceed the MUN guideline and zero of one samples exceed the COLD 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. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 97114 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Iron | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB6 Monitoring data for Bishop Creek Canal to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Iron. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for the SWAMP RWB6 Monitoring (tissue and water). | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Lahontan Region). | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The Red Book states that based on field observations principally, a criterion of 1.0 mg/L iron for freshwater aquatic life is believed to be adequately protective. | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Quality Criteria for Water. USEPA Office of Water and Hazardous Materials. Washington, D.C | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site(s) (603BSP002) | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-09-29 and 2010-09-29 | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 97113 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Iron | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB6 Monitoring data for Bishop Creek Canal to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Iron. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for the SWAMP RWB6 Monitoring (tissue and water). | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region?s Objective for Municipal and Domestic Supply uses of inland surface waters states that 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). This is 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 the Water Quality Control 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 Levels-Ranges). The maximum contaminant level listed in Table 64449-A for Iron is 0.3 mg/L. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site(s) (603BSP002) | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-09-29 and 2010-09-29 | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
DECISION ID |
80204 |
Region 6 |
Bishop Creek Canal |
||
| Pollutant: | Lead |
| 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)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Revised |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Staff Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA 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 that are both based on sediment samples. Zero of four samples exceed the sediment guideline for lead. 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 CWA 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 four samples exceeded the sediment 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. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 100417 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Lead | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 3 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends data for Bishop Creek Canal to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 3 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Lead . | ||||
| Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends. | ||||
| 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. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region) | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Lead from MacDonald et al., 2000a which states that the probable effect concentration for Lead is 128 mg/kg. (dw = Dry Weight) | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 (Station Codes: 603BSP002). | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2010-10-06 to 2013-10-09 | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 43841 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Lead | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Bishop Creek Canal to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Lead. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Lahontan Region). | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for lead is 128 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Bishop Creek Canal was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Bishop Creek at East Line St] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 9/17/2008. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
78312 |
Region 6 |
Bishop Creek Canal |
||
| Pollutant: | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) |
| 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)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Revised |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Staff Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA 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 each based on a single sediment sample. Zero of two samples exceed the sediment guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA 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 two samples exceeded the sediment 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. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 43831 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Bishop Creek Canal to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for HCH, gamma. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Lahontan Region). | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for Lindane (gamma-HCH) is 4.99 ug/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Bishop Creek Canal was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Bishop Creek at East Line St] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 9/17/2008. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 100299 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends data for Bishop Creek Canal to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 1 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for HCH, gamma-. Although a total of 4 samples were collected, 3 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends. | ||||
| 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. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region) | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Lindane from MacDonald et al., 2000a which states that the probable effect concentration for Lindane is 4.99 ug/kg. (dw = Dry Weight) | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 (Station Codes: 603BSP002). | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2013-10-09 to 2013-10-09 | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
DECISION ID |
78313 |
Region 6 |
Bishop Creek Canal |
||
| Pollutant: | Mercury |
| 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)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Revised |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Staff Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA 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 that are both based on sediment samples. Zero of five samples exceed the sediment guideline for mercury. 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 CWA 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 five samples exceeded the sediment 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. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 43851 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Mercury | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Bishop Creek Canal to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Mercury. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Lahontan Region). | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for mercury is 1.06 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Bishop Creek Canal was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Bishop Creek at East Line St] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 9/17/2008. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 100276 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Mercury | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends data for Bishop Creek Canal to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 4 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Mercury . | ||||
| Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends. | ||||
| 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. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region) | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Mercury from MacDonald et al., 2000a states that the probable effect concentration for Mercury is 1.06 mg/kg. (dw = Dry Weight) | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 (Station Codes: 603BSP002). | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2010-10-06 to 2013-10-09 | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
DECISION ID |
78727 |
Region 6 |
Bishop Creek Canal |
||
| Pollutant: | Methyl Parathion |
| 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)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Revised |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Staff Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA 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. Zero of five samples exceed the sediment guideline for methyl parathion. 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 CWA 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 five samples exceed the sediment 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. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 44374 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Methyl Parathion | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Bishop Creek Canal to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Parathion, Methyl. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region). | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for methyl parathion is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 6 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 6 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for methyl parathion from Ding et al. (2011). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Toxicity of Sediment-Associated Pesticides to Chironomus dilutus and Hyalella azteca. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 61:83¿92. | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Bishop Creek Canal was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Bishop Creek at East Line St - 603BSP002] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 9/17/2008. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 132689 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Methyl Parathion | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends data for Bishop Creek Canal to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 4 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Parathion, Methyl . | ||||
| Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends. | ||||
| 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. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region) | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for methyl parathion is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 6 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 6 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for methyl parathion from Ding et al. (2011). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Toxicity of Sediment-Associated Pesticides to Chironomus dilutus and Hyalella azteca. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 61:83¿92. | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 (Station Codes: 603BSP002). | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2010-10-06 to 2013-10-09 | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
DECISION ID |
78416 |
Region 6 |
Bishop Creek Canal |
||
| Pollutant: | Naphthalene |
| 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)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Revised |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Staff Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA 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 that are both based on sediment samples. Zero of six samples exceed the sediment guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA 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 six samples exceeded the sediment 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. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 100279 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Naphthalene | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends data for Bishop Creek Canal to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 5 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Naphthalene . | ||||
| Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends. | ||||
| 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. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region) | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Naphthalene from MacDonald et al., 2000a which states that the probable effect concentration for Naphthalene is 561 ug/kg. (dw = Dry Weight) | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 (Station Codes: 603BSP002). | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2010-10-06 to 2014-10-08 | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 43893 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Naphthalene | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Bishop Creek Canal to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Naphthalene. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region). | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for naphthalene is 561 ug/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Bishop Creek Canal was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Bishop Creek at East Line St - 603BSP002] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 9/17/2008. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
78729 |
Region 6 |
Bishop Creek Canal |
||
| Pollutant: | Nickel |
| 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)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Revised |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Staff Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA 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 that are both based on sediment samples. Zero of four samples exceed the sediment guideline for nickel. 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 CWA 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 four 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. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 43861 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Nickel | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Bishop Creek Canal to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Nickel. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Lahontan Region). | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for nickel is 48.6 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Bishop Creek Canal was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Bishop Creek at East Line St] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 9/17/2008. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 100280 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Nickel | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 3 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends data for Bishop Creek Canal to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 3 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Nickel . | ||||
| Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends. | ||||
| 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. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region) | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Nickel from MacDonald et al., 2000a which states that the probable effect concentration for Nickel is 48.6 mg/kg. (dw = Dry Weight) | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 (Station Codes: 603BSP002). | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2010-10-06 to 2013-10-09 | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
DECISION ID |
102482 |
Region 6 |
Bishop Creek Canal |
||
| Pollutant: | Nitrate/Nitrite (Nitrite + Nitrate as N) |
| 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 CWA 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. Zero of four samples exceed the guideline for nitrate/nitrite as N. 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 CWA 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 four 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. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 97116 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Nitrate/Nitrite (Nitrite + Nitrate as N) | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB6 Monitoring data for Bishop Creek Canal to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Nitrate + Nitrite as N. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for the SWAMP RWB6 Monitoring (tissue and water). | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The California Maximum Contaminant Level for nitrate + nitrite (as N) that is incorporated by reference in the Water Quality Control Plan, Lahontan Region is 10.0 mg/L (Water Quality Control Plan, 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 1 monitoring site(s) (603BSP002) | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-09-29 and 2010-09-29 | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 98180 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Nitrate/Nitrite (Nitrite + Nitrate as N) | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 3 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB6 Monitoring data for Bishop Creek Canal to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 3 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Nitrate + Nitrite as N. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for the SWAMP RWB6 Monitoring (tissue and water). | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The California Maximum Contaminant Level for nitrate + nitrite (as N) that is incorporated by reference in the Water Quality Control Plan, Lahontan Region is 10.0 mg/L (Water Quality Control Plan, 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 1 monitoring site(s) (603BSP002) | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2012-06-19 and 2012-10-30 | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
DECISION ID |
102483 |
Region 6 |
Bishop Creek Canal |
||
| Pollutant: | Oxygen, Dissolved |
| 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 CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant, two that assess for dissolved oxygen concentration and one that assesses for dissolved oxygen saturation. Zero of six samples exceed the dissolved oxygen concentration objective and one of five samples exceed the dissolved oxygen saturation 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 CWA 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 six samples exceed the dissolved oxygen concentration objective and one of five samples exceed the dissolved oxygen saturation 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. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 129999 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Oxygen, Dissolved | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB6 Monitoring data for Bishop Creek Canal to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 1 of 5 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Oxygen, Saturation. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for the SWAMP RWB6 Monitoring (tissue and water). | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region's water quality objective states that the dissolved oxygen concentration shall not be less than 80 percent of saturation. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site(s) (603BSP002) | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-09-29 and 2012-10-30 | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 130031 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Oxygen, Dissolved | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB6 Monitoring data for Bishop Creek Canal to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 5 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Oxygen, Dissolved. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for the SWAMP RWB6 Monitoring (tissue and water). | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | 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. (Water Quality Control Plan, 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 1 monitoring site(s) (603BSP002) | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-09-29 and 2012-10-30 | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 129955 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Oxygen, Dissolved | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends data for Bishop Creek Canal to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Oxygen, Dissolved. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | 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. (Water Quality Control Plan, 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 1 monitoring site(s) (603BSP002) | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2014-10-08 and 2014-10-08 | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
DECISION ID |
78728 |
Region 6 |
Bishop Creek Canal |
||
| Pollutant: | PAHs (Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons) |
| 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)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Revised |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Staff Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA 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 that are both based on sediment samples. Zero of six samples exceed the sediment guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA 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 six samples exceeded the sediment 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. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 100282 | ||||
| Pollutant: | PAHs (Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons) | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends data for Bishop Creek Canal to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 5 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for PAHs (Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons) . | ||||
| Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends. | ||||
| 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. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region) | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Total PAHs from MacDonald et al., 2000a which states that the probable effect concentration for Total PAHs is 22800 ug/kg. (dw = Dry Weight) | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 (Station Codes: 603BSP002). | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2010-10-06 to 2014-10-08 | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 43905 | ||||
| Pollutant: | PAHs (Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons) | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Bishop Creek Canal to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for PAHs (Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons). | ||||
| Data Reference: | Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region). | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | In freshwater sediments the probable effects level (predictive of sediment toxicity) for PAH, Total is 22,800 ug/Kg dry weight (Macdonald et al. 2000) | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Bishop Creek Canal was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Bishop Creek at East Line St - 603BSP002] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 9/17/2008. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
78730 |
Region 6 |
Bishop Creek Canal |
||
| Pollutant: | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) |
| 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)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Revised |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Staff Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA 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 that are both based on sediment samples. Zero of five samples exceed the sediment guideline for PCBs. 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 CWA 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 five samples exceeded the sediment 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. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 100424 | ||||
| Pollutant: | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends data for Bishop Creek Canal to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 4 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) . | ||||
| Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends. | ||||
| 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. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region) | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Total PCBs from MacDonald et al., 2000a which states that the probable effect concentration for Total PCBs is 676 ug/kg. (dw = Dry Weight) | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 (Station Codes: 603BSP002). | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2010-10-06 to 2013-10-09 | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 33258 | ||||
| Pollutant: | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Zero of 1 sample collected for Total PCBs exceeded the evaluation guideline. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Waters shall not contain substances in concentrations that result in deposition of material that causes nuisance or that adversely affects the water for beneficial uses (Lahontan Region Basin Plan). | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for total PCB is 676 ug/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data were collected at the following station 603BSP002 (Bishop Creek at East Line St). | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected on 9/17/2008. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
78202 |
Region 6 |
Bishop Creek Canal |
||
| Pollutant: | Permethrin, total |
| 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)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Revised |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Staff Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA 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. Zero of five samples exceed the sediment guideline for permethrin. 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 CWA 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 five samples exceed the sediment 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. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 100289 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Permethrin | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends data for Bishop Creek Canal to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 4 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Permethrin, Total . | ||||
| Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends. | ||||
| 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. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region) | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for permethrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 8.9 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 8.9 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for permethrin from Amweg et al. (2005). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 (Station Codes: 603BSP002). | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2010-10-06 to 2013-10-09 | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 44131 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Permethrin, total | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Bishop Creek Canal to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Permethrin, Total. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region). | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for permethrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 8.9 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 8.9 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for permethrin from Amweg et al. (2005). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Bishop Creek Canal was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Bishop Creek at East Line St - 603BSP002] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 9/17/2008. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
78203 |
Region 6 |
Bishop Creek Canal |
||
| Pollutant: | Phenanthrene |
| 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)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Revised |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Staff Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA 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 that are both based on sediment samples. Zero of six samples exceed the sediment guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA 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 six samples exceeded the sediment 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. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 43907 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Phenanthrene | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Bishop Creek Canal to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Phenanthrene. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region). | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | In freshwater sediments the probable effects level (predictive of sediment toxicity) for Phenanthrene is 1170 ug/Kg dry weight (Macdonald et al. 2000) | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Bishop Creek Canal was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Bishop Creek at East Line St - 603BSP002] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 9/17/2008. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 100397 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Phenanthrene | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends data for Bishop Creek Canal to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 5 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Phenanthrene . | ||||
| Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends. | ||||
| 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. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region) | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Phenanthrene from MacDonald et al., 2000a which states that the probable effect concentration for Phenanthrene is 1170 ug/kg. (dw = Dry Weight) | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 (Station Codes: 603BSP002). | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2010-10-06 to 2014-10-08 | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
DECISION ID |
78258 |
Region 6 |
Bishop Creek Canal |
||
| Pollutant: | Pyrene |
| 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)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Revised |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Staff Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA 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 that are both based on sediment samples. Zero of six samples exceed the sediment guideline for pyrene. 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 CWA 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 six samples exceeded the sediment 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. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 43909 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Pyrene | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Bishop Creek Canal to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Pyrene. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region). | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | In freshwater sediments the probable effects level (predictive of sediment toxicity) for Pyrene is 1520 ug/Kg dry weight (Macdonald et al. 2000) | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Bishop Creek Canal was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Bishop Creek at East Line St - 603BSP002] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 9/17/2008. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 100294 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Pyrene | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends data for Bishop Creek Canal to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 5 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Pyrene . | ||||
| Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends. | ||||
| 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. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region) | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Pyrene from MacDonald et al., 2000a which states that the probable effect concentration for Pyrene is 1520 ug/kg. (dw = Dry Weight) | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 (Station Codes: 603BSP002). | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2010-10-06 to 2014-10-08 | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
DECISION ID |
103471 |
Region 6 |
Bishop Creek Canal |
||
| Pollutant: | Pyrethroids |
| 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 CWA 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. Zero of five samples exceed the sediment guideline for pyrethroids. 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 CWA 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 five samples exceed the sediment 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. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 100401 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Pyrethroids | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends data for Bishop Creek Canal to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 5 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Pyrethroids . | ||||
| Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends. | ||||
| 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. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region) | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for the protection of aquatic life from pyrethroids is one toxic unit equivalent. A toxic unit equivalent is equal to the sum of; Bifenthrin, Cyfluthrin, Cypermethrin, Lambda-Cyhalothrin, and Permethrin, each having their reported concentration divided their respective evaluation guideline prior to being summed. If this results in a value greater than one, the sample day is considered to be in exceedance of the water quality standard. (Department of Fish and Game Aquatic Life Criteria for Pyrethroid Insecticides, 2000) | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5 | ||||
| Partitioning, bioavailability, and toxicity of the pyrethroid insecticide cypermethrin in sediments. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 21:9-15 | |||||
| Toxicity of Sediment-Associated Pesticides to Chironomus dilutus and Hyalella azteca. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 61:83¿92. | |||||
| Whole-sediment toxicity identification evaluation tools for pyrethroid insecticides: I. piperonyl butoxide addition. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 26:2389-2396. | |||||
| Aquatic life water quality criteria derived via the UC Davis method: ll. Pyrethroid insecticides. Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 216:51-103. | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 (Station Codes: 603BSP002). | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2010-10-06 to 2014-10-08 | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
DECISION ID |
103473 |
Region 6 |
Bishop Creek Canal |
||
| Pollutant: | Sodium |
| 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 CWA 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.
Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant that assess the same dataset for MUN and AGR. Zero of four samples exceed the AGR guideline and two of four samples exceed the MUN guideline for sodium. 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 CWA 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 four samples exceed the AGR guideline and two of four samples exceed the MUN guideline 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. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 97137 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Sodium | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 2 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB6 Monitoring data for Bishop Creek Canal to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 2 of 4 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Sodium. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for the SWAMP RWB6 Monitoring (tissue and water). | ||||
| 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 (Water Quality Control Plan, Lahontan Region). | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | Per the Drinking Water Standards and Health Advisories (USEPA 2012), the health advisory for sodium for individuals on a sodium-restricted diet is 20 mg/l. | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | 2012 Edition of the Drinking Water Standards and Health Advisories | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site(s) (603BSP002) | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-12-01 and 2012-10-30 | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 97182 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Sodium | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Agricultural Supply | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB6 Monitoring data for Bishop Creek Canal to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Sodium. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for the SWAMP RWB6 Monitoring (tissue and water). | ||||
| 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 (Water Quality Control Plan, Lahontan Region). | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | Water Quality for Agriculture, published by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations in 1985, contains criteria protective of various agricultural uses of water, including irrigation of various types of crops and stock watering. At or below the sodium threshold of 69 mg/L, agricultural uses of water should not be limited. | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Water Quality for Agriculture, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations - Irrigation and Drainage Paper No. 29, Rev 1, Rome (1985) | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site(s) (603BSP002) | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-12-01 and 2012-10-30 | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
DECISION ID |
103475 |
Region 6 |
Bishop Creek Canal |
||
| Pollutant: | Specific Conductivity |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
| Revision Status | Revised |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Staff Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA 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.
Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of six samples exceed the guideline for specific conductivity. 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 CWA 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 six samples exceeded the guideline 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. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 97288 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Specific Conductivity | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends data for Bishop Creek Canal to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceeded the water quality standard for SpecificConductivity. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water 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 Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations (Water Quality Control Plan, Lahontan Region). | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | California Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) apply to ambient waters under the Lahontan Basin Plan's \Chemical Constituents\" objective. The California Secondary MCL for specific conductivity is 900 uS/cm." | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 4, Chapter 15. Domestic Water Quality and Monitoring | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site(s) (603BSP002) | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2013-10-09 and 2014-10-08 | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 97199 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Specific Conductivity | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB6 Monitoring data for Bishop Creek Canal to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceeded the water quality standard for SpecificConductivity. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for the SWAMP RWB6 Monitoring (tissue and water). | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water 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 Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations (Water Quality Control Plan, Lahontan Region). | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | California Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) apply to ambient waters under the Lahontan Basin Plan's \Chemical Constituents\" objective. The California Secondary MCL for specific conductivity is 900 uS/cm." | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 4, Chapter 15. Domestic Water Quality and Monitoring | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site(s) (603BSP002) | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-09-29 and 2012-10-30 | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
DECISION ID |
103476 |
Region 6 |
Bishop Creek Canal |
||
| 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 CWA 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. Zero of five samples exceed the guideline for sulfate. 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 CWA 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 five samples exceeded the guideline 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. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 97245 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Sulfates | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB6 Monitoring data for Bishop Creek Canal to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 5 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Sulfate. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for the SWAMP RWB6 Monitoring (tissue and water). | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The California Secondary MCL that is incorporated by reference in the Water Quality Control Plan, Lahontan Region for Sulfate 250 mg/L (Water Quality Control Plan, 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 1 monitoring site(s) (603BSP002) | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-09-29 and 2012-10-30 | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
DECISION ID |
103478 |
Region 6 |
Bishop Creek Canal |
||
| Pollutant: | Total Dissolved Solids |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
| Revision Status | Revised |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Staff Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA 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. Zero of five samples exceed the guideline for total dissolved solids. 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 CWA 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 five samples exceeded the guideline 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. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 98138 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Total Dissolved Solids | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB6 Monitoring data for Bishop Creek Canal to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 5 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Total Dissolved Solids. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for the SWAMP RWB6 Monitoring (tissue and water). | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The California Secondary MCL that is incorporated by reference in the Water Quality Control Plan, Lahontan Region for Total Dissolved Solids is 500 mg/L (Water Quality Control Plan, 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 1 monitoring site(s) (603BSP002) | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-09-29 and 2012-10-30 | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
DECISION ID |
78667 |
Region 6 |
Bishop Creek Canal |
||
| Pollutant: | Toxicity |
| 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)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Revised |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Staff Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA 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. Zero of six samples exceed the guideline for toxicity. 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 CWA 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 six 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. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 32008 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Toxicity | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Toxicity | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | TOXICITY TESTING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | One sample was collected to evaluate sediment toxicity. The sample did not exhibit 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 Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 | ||||
| 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 with the significant effect code SL. SL is defined as the result being significant compared to the negative control based on a statistical test, less than stated the alpha level, AND less than the evaluation threshold. | ||||
| 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 603BSP002. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The sample was collected in September 2008. | ||||
| 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 | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 99088 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Toxicity | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Toxicity | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | TOXICITY TESTING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | 0 of the 5 samples collected by SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends for Bishop Creek Canal exhibited toxicity. A sample may have multiple toxicity test results, but will only be counted once. A sample is defined as being collected on the same day, at the same location with the same lab sample ID (if provided). The following organisms and parameters were utilized for the toxicity tests: Hyalella azteca, for Growth (wt/surv indiv), Hyalella azteca, for Survival | ||||
| Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends. | ||||
| 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. (Lahontan Basin Plan) | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 stations. Monitoring site(s): ( 603BSP002 ) | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-10-06 and 2014-10-08. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
DECISION ID |
103796 |
Region 6 |
Bishop Creek Canal |
||
| Pollutant: | Turbidity |
| 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 CWA 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. Zero of four samples exceed the guideline for turbidity. 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 CWA 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 four samples exceeded the guideline 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. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 98533 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Turbidity | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB6 Monitoring data for Bishop Creek Canal to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Turbidity. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for the SWAMP RWB6 Monitoring (tissue and water). | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water 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 Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations. The Lahontan Basin Plan also has regionwide turbidity objective for other beneficial uses that states: Waters shall be free of changes in turbidity that cause nuisance or adversely affect the water for beneficial uses. Increases in turbidity shall not exceed natural levels by more than 10%. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | California Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) apply to ambient surface waters under the Lahontan Basin Plan's \Chemical Constituents\" objective. The Secondary MCL for turbidity is 5 NTU. Calculation of a numeric objective for other beneficial uses requires comparison with upstream or other background data which may not be available as part of the data used for water quality assessment. " | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 4, Chapter 15. Domestic Water Quality and Monitoring | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site(s) (603BSP002) | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-09-29 and 2012-10-30 | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
DECISION ID |
78666 |
Region 6 |
Bishop Creek Canal |
||
| Pollutant: | 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)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Revised |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Staff Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA 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 that are both based on sediment samples. Zero of four samples exceed the sediment guideline for zinc. 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 CWA 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 four samples exceeded the sediment 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. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 43871 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Zinc | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Bishop Creek Canal to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Zinc. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Lahontan Region). | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for zinc is 459 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Bishop Creek Canal was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Bishop Creek at East Line St] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 9/17/2008. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 100426 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Zinc | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 3 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends data for Bishop Creek Canal to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 3 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Zinc . | ||||
| Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends. | ||||
| 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. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region) | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Zinc from MacDonald et al., 2000a which states that the probable effect concentration for Zinc is 459 mg/kg. (dw = Dry Weight) | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 (Station Codes: 603BSP002). | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2010-10-06 to 2013-10-09 | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
DECISION ID |
103797 |
Region 6 |
Bishop Creek Canal |
||
| 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 CWA 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.
Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant that are based on two datasets assessed for MUN and COLD. The Basin Plan pH objective requires background data that is unavailable, consequently the pH data cannot be assessed. All the lines of evidence show zero of zero 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 CWA 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 zero 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. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 129545 | ||||
| Pollutant: | pH | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | 0 of 0 samples exceeded the water quality standard for pH. Although pH data does exist for this waterbody, the objective for this pollutant requires background information that is currently unavailable, and therefore an assessment of water quality standards could not be made. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Lahontan Basin Plan's regionwide objective for pH states: \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 units. 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.\"" | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site(s) (603BSP002) | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2014-10-08 and 2014-10-08 | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 129654 | ||||
| Pollutant: | pH | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | 0 of 0 samples exceeded the water quality standard for pH. Although pH data does exist for this waterbody, the objective for this pollutant requires background information that is currently unavailable, and therefore an assessment of water quality standards could not be made. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for the SWAMP RWB6 Monitoring (tissue and water). | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Lahontan Basin Plan's regionwide objective for pH states: \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 units. 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.\"" | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site(s) (603BSP002) | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-09-29 and 2012-10-30 | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 129693 | ||||
| Pollutant: | pH | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | 0 of 0 samples exceeded the water quality standard for pH. Although pH data does exist for this waterbody, the objective for this pollutant requires background information that is currently unavailable, and therefore an assessment of water quality standards could not be made. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for the SWAMP RWB6 Monitoring (tissue and water). | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Lahontan Basin Plan's regionwide objective for pH states: \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 units. 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.\"" | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site(s) (603BSP002) | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-09-29 and 2012-10-30 | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 129546 | ||||
| Pollutant: | pH | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | 0 of 0 samples exceeded the water quality standard for pH. Although pH data does exist for this waterbody, the objective for this pollutant requires background information that is currently unavailable, and therefore an assessment of water quality standards could not be made. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Lahontan Basin Plan's regionwide objective for pH states: \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 units. 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.\"" | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site(s) (603BSP002) | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2014-10-08 and 2014-10-08 | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
DECISION ID |
102036 |
Region 6 |
Bishop Creek Canal |
||
| Pollutant: | Indicator Bacteria |
| 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: | 2031 |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Staff Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.3 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.3 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Four lines of evidence, two which assess E. coli data for the REC-1 beneficial use and two which assess fecal coliform data for the MUN beneficial use, are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of 39 E. coli geometric mean samples and 1 of 36 E. coli statistical threshold value (STV) samples exceed the water quality objective. 58 of 71 fecal coliform geometric mean samples and 21 of 37 fecal coliform STV's exceed the objective for MUN, which warrants the basis for this listing. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification for placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA 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. 58 of 71 fecal coliform log-mean samples and 21 of 37 fecal coliform statistical threshold value (STV) samples exceed the water quality 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: | 100080 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Escherichia coli (E. coli) | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Water Contact Recreation | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 39 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PATHOGEN MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB6 Monitoring data for Bishop Creek Canal to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 39 samples exceeded the geomean water quality standard for E. coli. This is a six week rolling geomean that is calculated weekly. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for the SWAMP RWB6 Monitoring (tissue and water). | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The bacteria water quality objective applicable to all waters, except Lake Tahoe, where the salinity is less than 10 parts per thousand (ppth) 95 percent or more of the time is a six-week rolling GEOMETRIC MEAN (GM) of Escherichia coli (E. coli) not to exceed 100 colony forming units per 100 milliliters (cfu/100 mL) (calculated weekly). | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays, and Estuaries Plan. Part 1: Trash Provisions; Part 2: Tribal Subsistence Beneficial Uses and Mercury Provisions; Part 3: Bacteria Provisions and Variance Policy | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 2 monitoring site(s), station(s): 603BSP002, 603BSP003 | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the days of 2010-12-01 and 2014-04-23 . | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 99840 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Escherichia coli (E. coli) | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Water Contact Recreation | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 36 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PATHOGEN MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB6 Monitoring data for Bishop Creek Canal to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 1 of the 36 samples exceeded the Statistical Threshold Value (STV) water quality standard for E. coli. The STV is based on a 10% exceedance rate that is calculated monthly. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for the SWAMP RWB6 Monitoring (tissue and water). | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The bacteria water quality objective applicable to all waters, except Lake Tahoe, where the salinity is less than 10 parts per thousand (ppth) 95 percent or more of the time is a STATISTICAL THRESHOLD VALUE (STV) of 320 cfu/100 mL not to be exceeded more than 10 percent of the time (calculated monthly). | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays, and Estuaries Plan. Part 1: Trash Provisions; Part 2: Tribal Subsistence Beneficial Uses and Mercury Provisions; Part 3: Bacteria Provisions and Variance Policy | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 2 monitoring site(s), station(s): 603BSP002, 603BSP003 | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the days of 2010-12-01 and 2014-04-23 . | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 129391 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Fecal Coliform | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 71 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 58 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PATHOGEN MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB6 Monitoring data for Bishop Creek Canal to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 58 of the 71 samples exceeded the logmean water quality standard for Coliform, Fecal. This is a 30-day rolling logmean that is calculated daily. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for the SWAMP RWB6 Monitoring (tissue and water). | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Waters shall not contain concentrations of coliform organisms attributable to anthropogenic sources, including human and livestock wastes. The fecal coliform concentration during any 30-day period shall not exceed a log mean of 20/100 ml. (Lahontan Region Basin Plan) | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 2 monitoring site(s), station(s): 603BSP002, 603BSP003 | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the days of 2010-09-29 and 2014-04-23 . | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 129239 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Fecal Coliform | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 37 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 21 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PATHOGEN MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB6 Monitoring data for Bishop Creek Canal to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 21 of the 37 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Coliform, Fecal. The water quality standard is based on a 10% exceedance rate that is calculated monthly. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for the SWAMP RWB6 Monitoring (tissue and water). | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Waters shall not contain concentrations of coliform organisms attributable to anthropogenic sources, including human and livestock wastes. The fecal coliform concentration during any 30-day period shall not exceed a log mean of 20/100 ml, nor shall more than 10 percent of all samples collected during any 30-day period exceed 40/100 ml. (Lahontan Region Basin Plan) | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 2 monitoring site(s), station(s): 603BSP002, 603BSP003 | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the days of 2010-09-29 and 2014-04-23 . | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||