Water Body Name: | Carson River, West Fork (Woodfords to stateline) |
Water Body ID: | CAR6331001320011213144544 |
Water Body Type: | River & Stream |
DECISION ID |
70167 |
Region 6 |
Carson River, West Fork (Woodfords to stateline) |
||
Pollutant: | Indicator Bacteria |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Sources: | Source Unknown |
Expected TMDL Completion Date: | 2022 |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Staff Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for removal from the CWA section 303(d) List under section 4.2 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Eleven lines of evidence, three which evaluate E. coli data for the REC-1 beneficial use, four which evaluate fecal coliform data for the MUN beneficial use, two which evaluate fecal coliform data for the REC-1 beneficial use which are carried over from a previous assessment cycle and two placeholder LOE's evaluating Pathogens data also carried over from a previous assessment cycle, are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 1 of 75 E. coli geometric mean samples and 3 of 46 E. coli Statistical Threshold Value (STV) samples exceed the water quality objective for the REC-1 beneficial use; 95 of 133 fecal coliform log-mean samples and 24 of 44 fecal coliform STV samples exceed the objective for the MUN beneficial use; 38 of 78 fecal coliform log-mean samples and 29 of 78 fecal coliform STV samples assessed during a previous assessment cycle but carried into the 2018 assessment cycle because of a mapping change to the waterbody exceed the objectives for the REC-1 beneficial use; 0 of 0 Pathogens samples from a previous assessment cycle exceed the objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from 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. 95 of 133 fecal coliform log-mean samples and 24 of 44 fecal coliform STV samples exceed the objective for the MUN beneficial use; 38 of 78 fecal coliform log-mean samples and 29 of 78 fecal coliform STV samples assessed during a previous assessment cycle but carried into the 2018 assessment cycle because of a mapping change to the waterbody exceed the objectives for the REC-1 beneficial use and these sample sizes exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.2 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met. |
Regional Board Staff Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 129376 | ||||
Pollutant: | Fecal Coliform | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 39 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 24 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PATHOGEN MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed RWB6_BACT_Monitoring data for Carson River, West Fork (Woodfords to State Line) to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 24 of the 39 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 Regional Water Board 6 Bacteria Monitoring. | ||||
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 1 monitoring site(s), station(s): 633WFCB02 | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the days of 2010-08-31 and 2015-08-18 . | ||||
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: | 129195 | ||||
Pollutant: | Fecal Coliform | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 128 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 93 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PATHOGEN MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed RWB6_BACT_Monitoring data for Carson River, West Fork (Woodfords to State Line) to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 93 of the 128 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 Regional Water Board 6 Bacteria Monitoring. | ||||
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 1 monitoring site(s), station(s): 633WFCB02 | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the days of 2010-08-31 and 2015-08-18 . | ||||
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: | 129123 | ||||
Pollutant: | Fecal Coliform | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
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 Carson River, West Fork (Woodfords to State Line) to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 5 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 1 monitoring site(s), station(s): 633WFCB02 | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the days of 2014-12-08 and 2015-11-19 . | ||||
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: | 99965 | ||||
Pollutant: | Escherichia coli (E. coli) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Water Contact Recreation | ||||
Number of Samples: | 40 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 3 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PATHOGEN MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed RWB6_BACT_Monitoring data for Carson River, West Fork (Woodfords to State Line) to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 3 of the 40 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 Regional Water Board 6 Bacteria Monitoring. | ||||
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 1 monitoring site(s), station(s): 633WFCB02 | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the days of 2010-08-31 and 2015-08-18 . | ||||
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: | 100058 | ||||
Pollutant: | Escherichia coli (E. coli) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Water Contact Recreation | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
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 Carson River, West Fork (Woodfords to State Line) to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 6 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 1 monitoring site(s), station(s): 633WFCB02 | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the days of 2014-12-08 and 2015-11-19 . | ||||
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: | 129228 | ||||
Pollutant: | Fecal Coliform | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 2 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PATHOGEN MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB6 Monitoring data for Carson River, West Fork (Woodfords to State Line) to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 2 of the 5 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 1 monitoring site(s), station(s): 633WFCB02 | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the days of 2014-12-08 and 2015-11-19 . | ||||
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: | 100483 | ||||
Pollutant: | Fecal Coliform | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Water Contact Recreation | ||||
Number of Samples: | 78 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 38 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Not Specified | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Thirty-eight of the 78 samples exceeded the Fecal Coliform objective. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for temperature, nutrients, and bacteria in Heavenly Valley Creek (USFS boundary to Trout Creek) and various water bodies in Alpine County, Jul 1980-Jun. 2010 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The fecal coliform concentration during any 30-day period shall not exceed a log mean of 20/100 ml. Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at Carson River, W Fork, Paynesville. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between January 2004 to June 2010. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The samples were collected under the South Tahoe Public Utility District Laboratory Quality Assurance Program. Monitoring and Reporting Program NO. R6T-2004-0010. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | South Lake Tahoe Public Utility District Laboratory Quality Assurance Program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 100466 | ||||
Pollutant: | Fecal Coliform | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Water Contact Recreation | ||||
Number of Samples: | 78 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 29 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Not Specified | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Twenty-nine of the 78 samples exceeded the Fecal Coliform objective. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for temperature, nutrients, and bacteria in Heavenly Valley Creek (USFS boundary to Trout Creek) and various water bodies in Alpine County, Jul 1980-Jun. 2010 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The fecal coliform concentration shall not exceed more than 40/100 ml. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at Carson River, W Fork, Paynesville. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between January 2004 to June 2010. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The samples were collected under the South Tahoe Public Utility District Laboratory Quality Assurance Program. Monitoring and Reporting Program NO. R6T-2004-0010. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | South Lake Tahoe Public Utility District Laboratory Quality Assurance Program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 100490 | ||||
Pollutant: | Pathogens | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Not Recorded | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Water Contact Recreation | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Not Specified | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Unspecified--This LOE is a placeholder to support a 303(d) listing decision made prior to 2006. | ||||
Data Reference: | Placeholder data and information reference for pre-2006 303(d) | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Unspecified | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Placeholder for standard, guideline and criteria referenced for pre-2006 303(d). | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | Unspecified | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Placeholder for standard, guideline and criteria referenced for pre-2006 303(d). | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Unspecified | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Unspecified | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Unspecified | ||||
QAPP Information: | Unspecified | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | South Lake Tahoe Public Utility District Laboratory Quality Assurance Program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 4598 | ||||
Pollutant: | Pathogens | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Not Recorded | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Water Contact Recreation | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Not Specified | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Unspecified--This LOE is a placeholder to support a 303(d) listing decision made prior to 2006. | ||||
Data Reference: | Placeholder reference pre-2006 303(d) | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Unspecified | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Placeholder reference pre-2006 303(d) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | Unspecified | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Placeholder reference pre-2006 303(d) | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Unspecified | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Unspecified | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Unspecified | ||||
QAPP Information: | Unspecified | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 99696 | ||||
Pollutant: | Escherichia coli (E. coli) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Water Contact Recreation | ||||
Number of Samples: | 75 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PATHOGEN MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed RWB6_BACT_Monitoring data for Carson River, West Fork (Woodfords to State Line) to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 1 of the 75 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 Regional Water Board 6 Bacteria Monitoring. | ||||
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 1 monitoring site(s), station(s): 633WFCB02 | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the days of 2010-08-31 and 2015-08-18 . | ||||
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 |
101045 |
Region 6 |
Carson River, West Fork (Woodfords to stateline) |
||
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.
Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of the 12 samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the 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 do not satisfy the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 0 of 12 samples exceeded the objective and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 26 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.2. 4. Pursuant to SECTION 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board 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: | 98715 | ||||
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 Carson River, West Fork (Woodfords to State Line) 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) (633WFCB02) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2014-12-08 and 2015-11-19 | ||||
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: | 97661 | ||||
Pollutant: | Alkalinity as CaCO3 | ||||
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 Perennial Stream Surveys data for Carson River, West Fork (Woodfords to State Line) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 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 Perennial Stream Surveys. | ||||
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) (633PS0142) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2014-06-30 and 2014-06-30 | ||||
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: | 98994 | ||||
Pollutant: | Alkalinity as CaCO3 | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed STORET data for Carson River, West Fork (Woodfords to State Line) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Alkalinity as CaCO3. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water quality data for federal, state, and tribal agencies submitted through the US EPA STorage and RETrival (STORET) database for the 2018 listing cycle. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-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) (21NEV1_WQX-NV08-201-WF-001) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2011-06-07 and 2012-07-18 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | QAPP not required for federal data | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | This is a placeholder reference for data which does not require a QAPP. | ||||
DECISION ID |
101077 |
Region 6 |
Carson River, West Fork (Woodfords to stateline) |
||
Pollutant: | Ammonia |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Staff Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the 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. This decision is based on data assessed against the SPAWN beneficial use. 0 of the 132 samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the 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. 0 of 132 samples exceeded the objective and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Staff Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 100541 | ||||
Pollutant: | Nitrogen, ammonia (Total Ammonia) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Fish Spawning | ||||
Number of Samples: | 132 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical monitoring (conventional pollutants only) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | None of 132 samples exceeded the water quality objective for unionized ammonia. Data were reported as as total ammonia as nitrogen and were converted to unionized ammonia before being compared with the objective. Some samples had temperature or pH values outside the range of the criteria and were not counted. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for temperature, nutrients, and bacteria in Heavenly Valley Creek (USFS boundary to Trout Creek) and various water bodies in Alpine County, Jul 1980-Jun. 2010 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Lahontan Basin Plan objective for unionized ammonia is a function of pH, temperature, and the presence of salmonids. The 4-day chronic criteria for unionized ammonia with salmonids present ranged from 0.0015 mg/L to 0.042 mg/L. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected at SW-05 Carson River, W Fork, Paynesville. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected from January 2002 to June 2010. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Samples were collected by STPUD and analyzed using STPUD Laboratory quality assurance program. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | South Lake Tahoe Public Utility District Laboratory Quality Assurance Program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 98406 | ||||
Pollutant: | Nitrogen, ammonia (Total Ammonia) | ||||
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 Perennial Stream Surveys data for Carson River, West Fork (Woodfords to State Line) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Ammonia as N. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for the SWAMP Perennial Stream Surveys. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Total Ammonia criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 30-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is Temperature and pH dependent, and was calculated according to the formula listed in the Aquatic Life Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Ammonia - Freshwater 2013 document. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Aquatic Life Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Ammonia - Freshwater 2013 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site(s) (633PS0142) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2014-06-30 and 2014-06-30 | ||||
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 |
101046 |
Region 6 |
Carson River, West Fork (Woodfords to stateline) |
||
Pollutant: | Arsenic |
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. 0 of the 1 samples exceed the water quality 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. 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 do not satisfy the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 0 of 1 samples exceeded the guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to SECTION 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Staff Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. 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: | 100454 | ||||
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 Carson River, West Fork (Woodfords to Paynesville) 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 Carson River, West Fork (Woodfords to Paynesville) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ West Fork Carson River at Paynesville] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 9/22/2008. | ||||
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 |
101047 |
Region 6 |
Carson River, West Fork (Woodfords to stateline) |
||
Pollutant: | Bifenthrin |
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 lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of the 1 samples exceed the water quality 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. 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 do not satisfy the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 0 of 1 samples exceeded the guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to SECTION 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Staff Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. 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: | 100534 | ||||
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 Carson River, West Fork (Woodfords to Paynesville) 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 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Carson River, West Fork (Woodfords to Paynesville) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ West Fork Carson River at Paynesville - 633WCRSED] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 9/22/2008. | ||||
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 |
101048 |
Region 6 |
Carson River, West Fork (Woodfords to stateline) |
||
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.
Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 2 of the 27 samples exceed the water quality objective. 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 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. 2 of 27 samples exceeded the objective and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Staff Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 100464 | ||||
Pollutant: | Boron | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 25 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Data were collected over a 31 year period. On 5 of those years (1980 and 1982-1985), the annual average exceeded 0.02 mg/L. However, since that time 25 years of data indicate that water quality has improved. Although, this improvement cannot be explained, it is clear that the initial exceedances are not representative of the current environmental conditions and should not be included in this assessment. Only data from 1986-2010 were assessed. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for temperature, nutrients, and bacteria in Heavenly Valley Creek (USFS boundary to Trout Creek) and various water bodies in Alpine County, Jul 1980-Jun. 2010 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The site-specific objective in Lahontan Basin Plan Table 3-14 is 0.02 mg/L (= 20 ug/L) as a mean of monthly means. The objective applies upstream from Woodfords under the Tributary Rule. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Sample collected at the following locations: SW-05-Carson River, W Fork, Paynesville | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples collected between 7/8/1980 and 6/2/2010. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | South Tahoe Public Utility District Laboratory Quality Assurance Program (by Terry Powers, Laboratory Director). March 30, 2009. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | South Lake Tahoe Public Utility District Laboratory Quality Assurance Program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 96707 | ||||
Pollutant: | Boron | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 2 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Data were collected by Lahontan field staff performing routine monitoring for the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). Data were collected in 2014 and 2015. Concentrations in the raw data ranged from 0.124 to 0.329 mg/L. Two annual averages were computed, both of which exceeded the site specific objective. The average computed for 2014 is based on only one data point. | ||||
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 site specific objective for boron in the West Fork Carson River, as referenced in the Lahontan Basin Plan table 3-14, is an annual average concentration not to exceed 0.02 mg/L. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected at one monitoring site, 633WFCB02, which is located downstream of the Diamond Valley Road bridge to the east of Chambers Lane. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data were collected on one day in December 2014, and once per quarter in 2015. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | The West Fork Carson River is an interstate river with headwaters near the Sierra Nevada crest and its lowest point in California in the Carson Valley. It joins the East Fork to form the Carson River in Nevada. Water from the West Fork is used for irrigation of pasture and some field crops in the Carson Valley in California, and it contributes to the irrigation supply in Nevada. | ||||
QAPP Information: | Data were collected in accordance with the SWAMP QAPP. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 96785 | ||||
Pollutant: | Boron | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
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: | Data were collected by the Nevada Department of Environmental Protection and consist of two years of two times a year sampling in 2011 and 2012 and one sample in 2013 resulting in three mean of monthly mean values. The Boron concentrations in the five samples were all below the quantification limit, which is sufficiently low to assess these samples as meeting the water quality objective for Boron. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water quality data for federal, state, and tribal agencies submitted through the US EPA STorage and RETrival (STORET) database for the 2018 listing cycle. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The site-specific objective for Boron for the West Fork Carson River at Stateline in the Lahontan Basin Plan Table 3-14 is a mean of monthly mean value of 0.02 mg/L that is calculated on an annual basis. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The data were collected by the Nevada Department of Environmental Protection at the West Fork Carson River at Paynesville site 21NEV1_WQX-NV08-201-WF-001 | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected by the Nevada Department of Environmental Protection twice a year during 2011 and 2012 and once during 2013. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | The West Fork Carson River is an interstate river with headwaters near the Sierra Nevada crest and its lowest point in California in the Carson Valley. It joins the East Fork to form the Carson River in Nevada. Water from the West Fork is used for irrigation of pasture and some field crops in the Carson Valley in California, and it contributes to the irrigation supply in Nevada. | ||||
QAPP Information: | These are data from the US EPA STorage and RETrival (STORET) database that do not require a QAPP. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | This is a placeholder reference for data which does not require a QAPP. | ||||
DECISION ID |
101049 |
Region 6 |
Carson River, West Fork (Woodfords to stateline) |
||
Pollutant: | Cadmium |
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. 0 of the 1 samples exceed the water quality 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. 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 does not satisfy the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 0 of 1 samples exceeded the guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to SECTION 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Staff Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. 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: | 100455 | ||||
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 Carson River, West Fork (Woodfords to Paynesville) 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 Carson River, West Fork (Woodfords to Paynesville) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ West Fork Carson River at Paynesville] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 9/22/2008. | ||||
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 |
101050 |
Region 6 |
Carson River, West Fork (Woodfords to stateline) |
||
Pollutant: | Chlordane |
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. 0 of the 1 samples exceed the water quality 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. 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 do not satisfy the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 0 of 1 samples exceeded the guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to SECTION 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Staff Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. 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: | 100481 | ||||
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 633WCRSED (West Fork Carson River at Paynesville). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | One sample was collected on 9/22/2008. | ||||
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 |
101051 |
Region 6 |
Carson River, West Fork (Woodfords to stateline) |
||
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.
Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 1 of the 32 samples exceed the the site specific 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. 1 of 32 samples exceeded the objective and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Staff Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 96786 | ||||
Pollutant: | Chloride | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
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: | Data were collected by the Nevada Department of Environmental Protection and consist of three years of one to four times a year sampling resulting in the potential for three mean of monthly mean values. Chloride concentrations in all of the samples collected were reported to be below the quantification limit, however it is not possible to assess compliance with the chloride objective because the quantification limit is not known. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water quality data for federal, state, and tribal agencies submitted through the US EPA STorage and RETrival (STORET) database for the 2018 listing cycle. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The site-specific objective for Chloride for the West Fork Carson River at Stateline in the Lahontan Basin Plan Table 3-14 is a mean of monthly mean value of 2.5 mg/L that is calculated on an annual basis. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The data were collected at the West Fork Carson River at Paynesville site 21NEV1_WQX-NV08-201-WF-001 | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data were collected by the Nevada Department of Environmental Protection three or four times a year during 2011 and 2012 and once during 2013. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | The West Fork Carson River is an interstate river with headwaters near the Sierra Nevada crest and its lowest point in California in the Carson Valley. It joins the East Fork to form the Carson River in Nevada. Water from the West Fork is used for irrigation of pasture and some field crops in the Carson Valley in California, and it contributes to the irrigation supply in Nevada. | ||||
QAPP Information: | These are data from the US EPA STorage and RETrival (STORET) database that do not require a QAPP. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | This is a placeholder reference for data which does not require a QAPP. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 96708 | ||||
Pollutant: | Chloride | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
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: | Data were collected by Lahontan field staff performing routine monitoring for the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). Data were collected in 2014 and 2015. Concentrations in the raw data ranged from 0.9 to 1.63 mg/L. Two annual averages were computed, none of which exceeded the site specific objective. The average computed for 2014 is based on only one data point. | ||||
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 site specific objective for chloride in the West Fork Carson River, as referenced in the Lahontan Basin Plan table 3-14, is an annual average concentration not to exceed 2.5 mg/L. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected at one monitoring site, 633WFCB02, which is located downstream of the Diamond Valley Road bridge to the east of Chambers Lane. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data were collected on one day in December 2014, and once per quarter in 2015. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | The West Fork Carson River is an interstate river with headwaters near the Sierra Nevada crest and its lowest point in California in the Carson Valley. It joins the East Fork to form the Carson River in Nevada. Water from the West Fork is used for irrigation of pasture and some field crops in the Carson Valley in California, and it contributes to the irrigation supply in Nevada. | ||||
QAPP Information: | Data were collected in accordance with the SWAMP QAPP. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 96714 | ||||
Pollutant: | Chloride | ||||
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: | Data were collected by Lahontan field staff for the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Perennial Stream Surveys. Data were collected on one day in 2014. The concentration was reported as 1.07 mg/L, which attains the site specific objective. The computed annual average is based on only one data point. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for the SWAMP Perennial Stream Surveys. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The site specific objective for chloride in the West Fork Carson River, as referenced in the Lahontan Basin Plan table 3-14, is an annual average concentration not to exceed 2.5 mg/L. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected at one monitoring site, 633PS0142, which is located upstream of the Diamond Valley Road bridge (known locally as Paynesville Bridge). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data were collected on one day in June 2014. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | The West Fork Carson River is an interstate river with headwaters near the Sierra Nevada crest and its lowest point in California in the Carson Valley. It joins the East Fork to form the Carson River in Nevada. Water from the West Fork is used for irrigation of pasture and some field crops in the Carson Valley in California, and it contributes to the irrigation supply in Nevada. | ||||
QAPP Information: | Data were collected in accordance with the SWAMP QAPP. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 100463 | ||||
Pollutant: | Chloride | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 29 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Data were collected for 30 years between 1980 and 2010. For those 30 years, the mean of monthly means exceeded 2.5 mg/L in one of the years. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for temperature, nutrients, and bacteria in Heavenly Valley Creek (USFS boundary to Trout Creek) and various water bodies in Alpine County, Jul 1980-Jun. 2010 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The site-specific objective in Lahontan Basin Plan Table 3-14 is 2.5 mg/L as a mean of monthly means. The objective is applied at the CA/NV stateline. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Sample collected at the following locations: SW-05: Carson River, W Fork, Paynesville | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples collected between 1980 and 2010. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | South Tahoe Public Utility District Laboratory Quality Assurance Program (by Terry Powers, Laboratory Director). March 30, 2009. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | South Lake Tahoe Public Utility District Laboratory Quality Assurance Program | ||||
DECISION ID |
101052 |
Region 6 |
Carson River, West Fork (Woodfords to stateline) |
||
Pollutant: | Chlorpyrifos |
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. 0 of the 1 samples exceed the water quality 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. 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 do not satisfy the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 0 of 1 samples exceeded the guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to SECTION 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Staff Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. 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: | 100523 | ||||
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 Carson River, West Fork (Woodfords to Paynesville) 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 Carson River, West Fork (Woodfords to Paynesville) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ West Fork Carson River at Paynesville - 633WCRSED] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 9/22/2008. | ||||
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 |
101053 |
Region 6 |
Carson River, West Fork (Woodfords to stateline) |
||
Pollutant: | Chromium |
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 are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of the samples exceed the water quality 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. 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 does not satisfy the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 0 of 1 samples exceeded the guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to SECTION 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Staff Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. 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: | 100456 | ||||
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 Carson River, West Fork (Woodfords to Paynesville) 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 Carson River, West Fork (Woodfords to Paynesville) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ West Fork Carson River at Paynesville] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 9/22/2008. | ||||
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 |
101054 |
Region 6 |
Carson River, West Fork (Woodfords to stateline) |
||
Pollutant: | Copper |
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. 0 of the samples exceed the water quality 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. 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 does not satisfy the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 0 of 1 samples exceeded the guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to SECTION 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Staff Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. 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: | 100484 | ||||
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 Carson River, West Fork (Woodfords to Paynesville) 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 Carson River, West Fork (Woodfords to Paynesville) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ West Fork Carson River at Paynesville] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 9/22/2008. | ||||
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 |
101055 |
Region 6 |
Carson River, West Fork (Woodfords to stateline) |
||
Pollutant: | Cyfluthrin |
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. 0 of the samples exceed the water quality 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. 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 does not satisfy the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 0 of 1 samples exceeded the guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to SECTION 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Staff Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. 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: | 100532 | ||||
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 Carson River, West Fork (Woodfords to Paynesville) 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 Carson River, West Fork (Woodfords to Paynesville) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ West Fork Carson River at Paynesville - 633WCRSED] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 9/22/2008. | ||||
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 |
101056 |
Region 6 |
Carson River, West Fork (Woodfords to stateline) |
||
Pollutant: | Cyhalothrin, Lambda |
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. 0 of the samples exceed the water quality 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. 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 does not satisfy the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 0 of 1 samples exceeded the guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples are needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to SECTION 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Staff Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. 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: | 100522 | ||||
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 Carson River, West Fork (Woodfords to Paynesville) 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 Carson River, West Fork (Woodfords to Paynesville) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ West Fork Carson River at Paynesville - 633WCRSED] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 9/22/2008. | ||||
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 |
101057 |
Region 6 |
Carson River, West Fork (Woodfords to stateline) |
||
Pollutant: | Cypermethrin |
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. 0 of the samples exceed the water quality 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. 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 does not satisfy the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 0 of 1 samples exceeded the guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples are needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to SECTION 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Staff Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. 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: | 100531 | ||||
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 Carson River, West Fork (Woodfords to Paynesville) 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 Carson River, West Fork (Woodfords to Paynesville) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ West Fork Carson River at Paynesville - 633WCRSED] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 9/22/2008. | ||||
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 |
101058 |
Region 6 |
Carson River, West Fork (Woodfords to stateline) |
||
Pollutant: | Deltamethrin |
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. 0 of the samples exceed the water quality 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. 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 does not satisfy the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 0 of 1 samples exceeded the guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples are needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to SECTION 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Staff Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. 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: | 100533 | ||||
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 Carson River, West Fork (Woodfords to Paynesville) 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 Carson River, West Fork (Woodfords to Paynesville) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ West Fork Carson River at Paynesville - 633WCRSED] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 9/22/2008. | ||||
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 |
101059 |
Region 6 |
Carson River, West Fork (Woodfords to stateline) |
||
Pollutant: | Diazinon |
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. 0 of the samples exceed the water quality 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. 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 does not satisfy the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 0 of 1 samples exceeded the guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples are needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to SECTION 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Staff Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. 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: | 100458 | ||||
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 Carson River, West Fork (Woodfords to Paynesville) 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 Carson River, West Fork (Woodfords to Paynesville) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ West Fork Carson River at Paynesville - 633WCRSED] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 9/22/2008. | ||||
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 |
101060 |
Region 6 |
Carson River, West Fork (Woodfords to stateline) |
||
Pollutant: | Dieldrin |
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. 0 of the samples exceed the water quality 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. 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 do not satisfy the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 0 of 1 samples exceeded the guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples are needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to SECTION 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Staff Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. 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: | 100485 | ||||
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 Carson River, West Fork (Woodfords to Paynesville) 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 Carson River, West Fork (Woodfords to Paynesville) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ West Fork Carson River at Paynesville] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 9/22/2008. | ||||
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 |
101062 |
Region 6 |
Carson River, West Fork (Woodfords to stateline) |
||
Pollutant: | Endrin |
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. 0 of the samples exceed the water quality 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. 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 do not satisfy the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 0 of 1 samples exceeded the guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples are needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to SECTION 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Staff Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. 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: | 100510 | ||||
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 Carson River, West Fork (Woodfords to Paynesville) 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 Carson River, West Fork (Woodfords to Paynesville) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ West Fork Carson River at Paynesville] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 9/22/2008. | ||||
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 |
101063 |
Region 6 |
Carson River, West Fork (Woodfords to stateline) |
||
Pollutant: | Esfenvalerate/Fenvalerate |
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. 0 of the samples exceed the water quality 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. 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 do not satisfy the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 0 of 1 samples exceeded the guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples are needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to SECTION 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Staff Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. 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: | 100469 | ||||
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 Carson River, West Fork (Woodfords to Paynesville) 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 Carson River, West Fork (Woodfords to Paynesville) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ West Fork Carson River at Paynesville - 633WCRSED] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 9/22/2008. | ||||
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 |
101064 |
Region 6 |
Carson River, West Fork (Woodfords to stateline) |
||
Pollutant: | Fenpropathrin |
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. 0 of the samples exceed the water quality 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. 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 does not satisfy the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 0 of 1 samples exceeded the guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples are needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to SECTION 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Staff Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. 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: | 100467 | ||||
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 Carson River, West Fork (Woodfords to Paynesville) 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 Carson River, West Fork (Woodfords to Paynesville) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ West Fork Carson River at Paynesville - 633WCRSED] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 9/22/2008. | ||||
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 |
101065 |
Region 6 |
Carson River, West Fork (Woodfords to stateline) |
||
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. 0 of the 5 samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the 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 do not satisfy the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 0 of 5 samples exceeded the objective and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 26 samples are needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.2. 4. Pursuant to SECTION 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board 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: | 98157 | ||||
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 Carson River, West Fork (Woodfords to State Line) 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) (633WFCB02) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2014-12-08 and 2015-11-19 | ||||
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 |
101067 |
Region 6 |
Carson River, West Fork (Woodfords to stateline) |
||
Pollutant: | Lead |
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. 0 of the samples exceed the water quality 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. 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 does not satisfy the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 0 of 1 samples exceeded the guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples are needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to SECTION 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Staff Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. 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: | 100512 | ||||
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 Carson River, West Fork (Woodfords to Paynesville) 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 Carson River, West Fork (Woodfords to Paynesville) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ West Fork Carson River at Paynesville] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 9/22/2008. | ||||
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 |
101068 |
Region 6 |
Carson River, West Fork (Woodfords to stateline) |
||
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: | 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. 0 of the samples exceed the water quality 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. 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 does not satisfy the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 0 of 1 samples exceeded the guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples are needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to SECTION 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Staff Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. 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: | 100511 | ||||
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 Carson River, West Fork (Woodfords to Paynesville) 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 Carson River, West Fork (Woodfords to Paynesville) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ West Fork Carson River at Paynesville] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 9/22/2008. | ||||
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 |
101069 |
Region 6 |
Carson River, West Fork (Woodfords to stateline) |
||
Pollutant: | Manganese |
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. 0 of the samples exceed the water quality 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. 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 does not satisfy the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 0 of 1 samples exceeded the guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples are needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to SECTION 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Staff Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. 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: | 99046 | ||||
Pollutant: | Manganese | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
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 STORET data for Carson River, West Fork (Woodfords to State Line) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Manganese. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water quality data for federal, state, and tribal agencies submitted through the US EPA STorage and RETrival (STORET) database for the 2018 listing cycle. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-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). The secondary maximum contaminant level listed in Table 64449-A for Manganese is 0.05 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) (21NEV1_WQX-NV08-201-WF-001) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2012-04-18 and 2012-04-18 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | QAPP not required for federal data | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | This is a placeholder reference for data which does not require a QAPP. | ||||
DECISION ID |
101070 |
Region 6 |
Carson River, West Fork (Woodfords to stateline) |
||
Pollutant: | Mercury |
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. 0 of the samples exceed the water quality 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. 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 does not satisfy the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 0 of 1 samples exceeded the guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples are needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to SECTION 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Staff Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. 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: | 100519 | ||||
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 Carson River, West Fork (Woodfords to Paynesville) 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 Carson River, West Fork (Woodfords to Paynesville) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ West Fork Carson River at Paynesville] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 9/22/2008. | ||||
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 |
101071 |
Region 6 |
Carson River, West Fork (Woodfords to stateline) |
||
Pollutant: | Methyl Parathion |
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. 0 of the samples exceed the water quality 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. 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 do not satisfy the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 0 of 1 samples exceeded the guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples are needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to SECTION 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Staff Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. 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: | 100468 | ||||
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 Carson River, West Fork (Woodfords to Paynesville) 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 Carson River, West Fork (Woodfords to Paynesville) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ West Fork Carson River at Paynesville - 633WCRSED] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 9/22/2008. | ||||
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 |
101072 |
Region 6 |
Carson River, West Fork (Woodfords to stateline) |
||
Pollutant: | Nickel |
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. 0 of the samples exceed the water quality 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. 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 does not satisfy the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 0 of 1 samples exceeded the guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples are needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to SECTION 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Staff Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. 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: | 100520 | ||||
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 Carson River, West Fork (Woodfords to Paynesville) 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 Carson River, West Fork (Woodfords to Paynesville) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ West Fork Carson River at Paynesville] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 9/22/2008. | ||||
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 |
101074 |
Region 6 |
Carson River, West Fork (Woodfords to stateline) |
||
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.
Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of the 7 samples exceed the water quality 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. 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 do not satisfy the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 0 of 7 samples exceeded the objective and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples are needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to SECTION 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Staff Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. 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: | 99010 | ||||
Pollutant: | Nitrate/Nitrite (Nitrite + Nitrate as N) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
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 STORET data for Carson River, West Fork (Woodfords to State Line) 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 data for federal, state, and tribal agencies submitted through the US EPA STorage and RETrival (STORET) database for the 2018 listing cycle. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-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) (21NEV1_WQX-NV08-201-WF-001) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2012-04-18 and 2012-04-18 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | QAPP not required for federal data | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | This is a placeholder reference for data which does not require a QAPP. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 97748 | ||||
Pollutant: | Nitrate/Nitrite (Nitrite + Nitrate as N) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
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 Perennial Stream Surveys data for Carson River, West Fork (Woodfords to State Line) 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 Perennial Stream Surveys. | ||||
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) (633PS0142) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2014-06-30 and 2014-06-30 | ||||
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: | 98518 | ||||
Pollutant: | Nitrate/Nitrite (Nitrite + Nitrate as N) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
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 Carson River, West Fork (Woodfords to State Line) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 5 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) (633WFCB02) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2014-12-08 and 2015-11-19 | ||||
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 |
101075 |
Region 6 |
Carson River, West Fork (Woodfords to stateline) |
||
Pollutant: | Nitrogen, Nitrite |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Staff Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the 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. 0 of the 158 samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the 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. 0 of 158 samples exceeded the objective and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Staff Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 100540 | ||||
Pollutant: | Nitrite as Nitrite NO2 | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 158 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical monitoring (conventional pollutants only) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | None of 158 samples exceeded the water quality objective for nitrite. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for temperature, nutrients, and bacteria in Heavenly Valley Creek (USFS boundary to Trout Creek) and various water bodies in Alpine County, Jul 1980-Jun. 2010 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan, Lahontan Basin, Objective for Municipal and Domestic Supply uses of inland surface waters states the following: waters shall not contain concentrations of inorganic chemicals in excess of the limits specified in California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Table 64431-A of section 64431 (Inorganic Chemicals). The maximum contaminant level listed in Table 64431-A for Nitrite as N is 1.0 mg/L. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected at SW-05 Carson River, W Fork, Paynesville. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected from January 2002 to June 2010. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Samples were collected by STPUD and analyzed using STPUD Laboratory quality assurance program. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | South Lake Tahoe Public Utility District Laboratory Quality Assurance Program | ||||
DECISION ID |
101078 |
Region 6 |
Carson River, West Fork (Woodfords to stateline) |
||
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.
Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 7 of the 177 samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the 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. 7 of 177 samples exceeded the objective and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Staff Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 130124 | ||||
Pollutant: | Oxygen, Dissolved | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 27 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Alpine Watershed Group Monitoring Program data for Carson River, West Fork (Woodfords to State Line) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 27 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Oxygen, Dissolved. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for Alpine Watershed Group Monitoring Program. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | For waters with the beneficial uses of COLD, COLD with SPWN, WARM, and WARM with SPWN, the minimum dissolved oxygen concentration shall not be less than that specified in Table 3-6. (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) (WF-PNSV) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-09-11 and 2017-03-11 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Alpine Watershed Group Volunteer Citizen Water Quality Monitoring Program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Alpine Watershed Group Volunteer Citizen Water Quality Monitoring Program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 129990 | ||||
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 Perennial Stream Surveys data for Carson River, West Fork (Woodfords to State Line) 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 the SWAMP Perennial Stream Surveys. | ||||
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) (633PS0142) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2014-06-30 and 2014-06-30 | ||||
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: | 130135 | ||||
Pollutant: | Oxygen, Dissolved | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed STORET data for Carson River, West Fork (Woodfords to State Line) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Oxygen, Dissolved. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water quality data for federal, state, and tribal agencies submitted through the US EPA STorage and RETrival (STORET) database for the 2018 listing cycle. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | For waters with the beneficial uses of COLD, COLD with SPWN, WARM, and WARM with SPWN, the minimum dissolved oxygen concentration shall not be less than that specified in Table 3-6. (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) (21NEV1_WQX-NV08-201-WF-001) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2011-06-07 and 2012-07-18 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | QAPP not required for federal data | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | This is a placeholder reference for data which does not require a QAPP. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 100476 | ||||
Pollutant: | Oxygen, Dissolved | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 143 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 7 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Data were collected over 31 years. Of the 143 daily averaged samples collected, 7 had dissolved oxygen levels below 7.0 mg/L. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for temperature, nutrients, and bacteria in Heavenly Valley Creek (USFS boundary to Trout Creek) and various water bodies in Alpine County, Jul 1980-Jun. 2010 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The applicable water quality objective from the Lahontan Basin Plan states: "The dissolved oxygen concentration shall not be depressed by more than 10 percent, below 80 percent saturation, or below 7.0 mg/L at any time, whichever is more restrictive." (Note: this is a watershed-specific narrative objective that differs from the regionwide objectives in Basin Plan Table 3-6.) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Sample collected at the following locations: SW-05-Carson River, W Fork, Paynesville | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples collected between 7/8/1980 and 6/2/2010. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | South Tahoe Public Utility District Laboratory Quality Assurance Program (by Terry Powers, Laboratory Director). March 30, 2009. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | South Lake Tahoe Public Utility District Laboratory Quality Assurance Program | ||||
DECISION ID |
101079 |
Region 6 |
Carson River, West Fork (Woodfords to stateline) |
||
Pollutant: | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) |
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 available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of the 1 samples exceed the water quality 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. 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 do not satisfy the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 0 of 1 samples exceeded the guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples are needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to SECTION 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Staff Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. 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: | 100461 | ||||
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 633WCRSED (West Fork Carson River at Paynesville). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected on 9/22/2008. | ||||
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 |
101080 |
Region 6 |
Carson River, West Fork (Woodfords to stateline) |
||
Pollutant: | Permethrin, total |
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. 0 of the samples exceed the water quality 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. 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 do not satisfy the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 0 of 1 samples exceeded the guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples are needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to SECTION 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Staff Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. 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: | 100457 | ||||
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 Carson River, West Fork (Woodfords to Paynesville) 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 Carson River, West Fork (Woodfords to Paynesville) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ West Fork Carson River at Paynesville - 633WCRSED] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 9/22/2008. | ||||
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 |
101081 |
Region 6 |
Carson River, West Fork (Woodfords to stateline) |
||
Pollutant: | Phosphorus |
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.
Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 1 of the 15 samples exceed the water quality 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. 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 do not satisfy the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 1 of 15 samples exceeded the guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples are needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to SECTION 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Staff Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. 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: | 96787 | ||||
Pollutant: | Phosphorus | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
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: | Data consists of three years of two to four times a year sampling resulting in three annual mean of monthly mean values. Total phosphorus values in individual samples ranged from 0.01 mg/L to 0.05 mg/L, however none of the three annual mean of monthly mean values exceeded the 0.03 mg/L objective for Total Phosphorus.. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water quality data for federal, state, and tribal agencies submitted through the US EPA STorage and RETrival (STORET) database for the 2018 listing cycle. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The site-specific objective for Total Phosphorus for the West Fork Carson River at Stateline in the Lahontan Basin Plan Table 3-14 is a mean of monthly mean value of 0.03 mg/L | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The data were collected by the Nevada Department of Environmental Protection at the West Fork Carson River at Paynesville site 21NEV1_WQX-NV08-201-WF-001 | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data were collected two to four times a year during 2011-2013. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | The West Fork Carson River is an interstate river with headwaters near the Sierra Nevada crest and its lowest point in California in the Carson Valley. It joins the East Fork to form the Carson River in Nevada. Water from the West Fork is used for irrigation of pasture and some field crops in the Carson Valley in California, and it contributes to the irrigation supply in Nevada. | ||||
QAPP Information: | These are data from the US EPA STorage and RETrival (STORET) database that do not require a QAPP. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | This is a placeholder reference for data which does not require a QAPP. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 96710 | ||||
Pollutant: | Phosphorus | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
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: | Data were collected by Lahontan field staff performing routine monitoring for the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). Data were collected in 2014 and 2015. Concentrations in the raw data ranged from 0.012 to 0.027 mg/L. Two annual averages were computed, none of which exceeded the site specific objective. The average computed for 2014 is based on only one data point. | ||||
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 site specific objective for phosphorus in the West Fork Carson River, as referenced in the Lahontan Basin Plan table 3-14, is an annual average concentration not to exceed 0.03 mg/L. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected at one monitoring site, 633WFCB02, which is located downstream of the Diamond Valley Road bridge to the east of Chambers Lane. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data were collected on one day in December 2014, and once per quarter in 2015. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | The West Fork Carson River is an interstate river with headwaters near the Sierra Nevada crest and its lowest point in California in the Carson Valley. It joins the East Fork to form the Carson River in Nevada. Water from the West Fork is used for irrigation of pasture and some field crops in the Carson Valley in California, and it contributes to the irrigation supply in Nevada. | ||||
QAPP Information: | Data were collected in accordance with the SWAMP QAPP. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 96716 | ||||
Pollutant: | Phosphorus | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Data were collected by Lahontan field staff for the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Perennial Stream Surveys. Data were collected on one day in 2014. The concentration was reported as 0.0338 mg/L, which exceeds the site specific objective. The computed annual average is based on only one data point. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for the SWAMP Perennial Stream Surveys. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The site specific objective for phosphorous in the West Fork Carson River, as referenced in the Lahontan Basin Plan table 3-14, is an annual average concentration not to exceed 0.03 mg/L. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected at one monitoring site, 633PS0142, which is located upstream of the Diamond Valley Road bridge (known locally as Paynesville Bridge). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data were collected on one day in June 2014. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | The West Fork Carson River is an interstate river with headwaters near the Sierra Nevada crest and its lowest point in California in the Carson Valley. It joins the East Fork to form the Carson River in Nevada. Water from the West Fork is used for irrigation of pasture and some field crops in the Carson Valley in California, and it contributes to the irrigation supply in Nevada. | ||||
QAPP Information: | Data were collected in accordance with the SWAMP QAPP. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 100537 | ||||
Pollutant: | Phosphorus | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 9 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical monitoring (conventional pollutants only) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Zero out of nine annual means of monthly means exceeded the water quality objective for total phosphorus expressed as an annual mean of monthly means. A total of 137 samples were collected from the site. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for temperature, nutrients, and bacteria in Heavenly Valley Creek (USFS boundary to Trout Creek) and various water bodies in Alpine County, Jul 1980-Jun. 2010 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The site specific objective for West Fork Carson River at Stateline for total phosphorus is 0.03 mg/L as means of monthly means. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected at following sampling sites: SW-05 Carson River, W Fork, Paynesville. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected monthly from January 2002 to June 2010. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Samples were collected by STPUD and analyzed using STPUD Laboratory quality assurance program. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | South Lake Tahoe Public Utility District Laboratory Quality Assurance Program | ||||
DECISION ID |
101082 |
Region 6 |
Carson River, West Fork (Woodfords to stateline) |
||
Pollutant: | Silver |
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, one for the COLD beneficial use and one for the MUN beneficial use. This decision is based on the COLD beneficial use assessment and is as follows: 1 of the 1 samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the 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 do not satisfy the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 1 of 1 samples exceeded the objective for the COLD beneficial use and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples are needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to SECTION 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Staff Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. 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: | 99025 | ||||
Pollutant: | Silver | ||||
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 STORET data for Carson River, West Fork (Woodfords to State Line) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Silver. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water quality data for federal, state, and tribal agencies submitted through the US EPA STorage and RETrival (STORET) database for the 2018 listing cycle. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The California Secondary MCL that is incorporated by reference in the Water Quality Control Plan, Lahontan Region for silver is 0.1 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) (21NEV1_WQX-NV08-201-WF-001) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2012-04-18 and 2012-04-18 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | QAPP not required for federal data | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | This is a placeholder reference for data which does not require a QAPP. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 99071 | ||||
Pollutant: | Silver | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed STORET data for Carson River, West Fork (Woodfords to State Line) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 1 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Silver. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water quality data for federal, state, and tribal agencies submitted through the US EPA STorage and RETrival (STORET) database for the 2018 listing cycle. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) lists criterion maximum concentrations to protect aquatic life in freshwater. The criterion in freshwater is hardness dependent for each sample and varies based on the ambient hardness during sampling. Section (b)(1) in CTR contains the hardness dependent formula for the metals criterion. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site(s) (21NEV1_WQX-NV08-201-WF-001) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2012-04-18 and 2012-04-18 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | QAPP not required for federal data | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | This is a placeholder reference for data which does not require a QAPP. | ||||
DECISION ID |
101083 |
Region 6 |
Carson River, West Fork (Woodfords to stateline) |
||
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.
Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant, 2 for the AG, 2 for the MUN and 1 for the COLD beneficial uses. 0 of the 6 samples evaluated for the AG and MUN beneficial uses exceed the water quality objective; data evaluated for the COLD beneficial use did not pass the quanititation checks required of the 2018 Integrated Report and the computed sample size is zero. 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 do not satisfy the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 0 of 6 samples exceeded the objectives for the AG and MUN beneficial uses and these sample sizes are insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 26 samples per beneficial use assessed are needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to SECTION 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Staff Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. 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: | 98174 | ||||
Pollutant: | Sodium | ||||
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 Carson River, West Fork (Woodfords to State Line) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 5 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) (633WFCB02) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2014-12-08 and 2015-11-19 | ||||
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: | 97154 | ||||
Pollutant: | Sodium | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Agricultural 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 Carson River, West Fork (Woodfords to State Line) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 5 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) (633WFCB02) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2014-12-08 and 2015-11-19 | ||||
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: | 99072 | ||||
Pollutant: | Sodium | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Agricultural 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 STORET data for Carson River, West Fork (Woodfords to State Line) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Sodium. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water quality data for federal, state, and tribal agencies submitted through the US EPA STorage and RETrival (STORET) database for the 2018 listing cycle. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-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) (21NEV1_WQX-NV08-201-WF-001) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2011-12-14 and 2011-12-14 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | QAPP not required for federal data | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | This is a placeholder reference for data which does not require a QAPP. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 99073 | ||||
Pollutant: | Sodium | ||||
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 STORET data for Carson River, West Fork (Woodfords to State Line) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Sodium. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water quality data for federal, state, and tribal agencies submitted through the US EPA STorage and RETrival (STORET) database for the 2018 listing cycle. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-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) (21NEV1_WQX-NV08-201-WF-001) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2011-12-14 and 2011-12-14 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | QAPP not required for federal data | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | This is a placeholder reference for data which does not require a QAPP. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 100491 | ||||
Pollutant: | Sodium | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Not Recorded | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Not Specified | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Unspecified--This LOE is a placeholder to support a 303(d) listing decision made prior to 2006. | ||||
Data Reference: | Placeholder data and information reference for pre-2006 303(d) | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Unspecified | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Placeholder for standard, guideline and criteria referenced for pre-2006 303(d). | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | Unspecified | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Placeholder for standard, guideline and criteria referenced for pre-2006 303(d). | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Unspecified | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Unspecified | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Unspecified | ||||
QAPP Information: | Unspecified | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | South Lake Tahoe Public Utility District Laboratory Quality Assurance Program | ||||
DECISION ID |
104538 |
Region 6 |
Carson River, West Fork (Woodfords to stateline) |
||
Pollutant: | Sodium Adsorption Ratio (SAR) |
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. 0 of 2 samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the 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. 0 of 2 samples exceeded the objective and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 26 samples are needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.2. 4. Pursuant to SECTION 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board 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: | 133525 | ||||
Pollutant: | Sodium Adsorption Ratio (SAR) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Agricultural Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Data were collected by the Region 6 SWAMP program in 2014 and 2015. SAR ratios were calculated as 0.28 and 0.33. No SAR annual average exceeded the objective. | ||||
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 objective for Sodium Absorption Ratio (SAR) in the West Fork of the Carson River (Woodfords to Stateline), as stipulated in the Lahontan Basin Plan 3-9, is a ratio not to exceed 1. SAR is calculated as Na/Sqrt((Ca+Mg)/2 in annual average fashion, and the formula uses milliequivalent (mEq) concentrations of each ion. To calculate mEq, the formula is (ion mg/L / molar mass)*valence. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from one station, 633WFCB02, located at Paynesville Bridge. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data were collected once in 2014 and in quarterly fashion in 2015. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Data were collected in accordance with the SWAMP QAPP. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
DECISION ID |
101061 |
Region 6 |
Carson River, West Fork (Woodfords to stateline) |
||
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.
Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of the 384 samples exceed the water quality 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. 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. 0 of 384 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 because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 100475 | ||||
Pollutant: | Electrical Conductivity | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 378 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Data were collected over 31 years. Of the 378 samples collected, none measured above 900 uS/cm. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for temperature, nutrients, and bacteria in Heavenly Valley Creek (USFS boundary to Trout Creek) and various water bodies in Alpine County, Jul 1980-Jun. 2010 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) apply to ambient waters under the Lahontan Basin Plan's "Chemical Constituents" objective. The MCL for specific conductance is 900 microsiemens per centimeter (uS/cm). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Secondary Maximum Contaminant Levels and Compliance. CCR title 22 section 64449. | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Sample collected at the following locations: SW-05-Carson River, W Fork, Paynesville | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples collected between 7/8/1980 and 6/2/2010. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | South Tahoe Public Utility District Laboratory Quality Assurance Program (by Terry Powers, Laboratory Director). March 30, 2009. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | South Lake Tahoe Public Utility District Laboratory Quality Assurance Program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 97785 | ||||
Pollutant: | Specific Conductivity | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
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 Perennial Stream Surveys data for Carson River, West Fork (Woodfords to State Line) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 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 Perennial Stream Surveys. | ||||
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) (633PS0142) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2014-06-30 and 2014-06-30 | ||||
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: | 97274 | ||||
Pollutant: | Specific Conductivity | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
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 Carson River, West Fork (Woodfords to State Line) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 5 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) (633WFCB02) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2014-12-08 and 2015-11-19 | ||||
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 |
101085 |
Region 6 |
Carson River, West Fork (Woodfords to stateline) |
||
Pollutant: | Temperature, water |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Staff Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the 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 available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of the 155 samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the 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. 0 of 155 samples exceeded the objective and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Staff Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 100472 | ||||
Pollutant: | Temperature, water | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 155 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | None of the 155 daily averaged samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for temperature in this water body. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for temperature, nutrients, and bacteria in Heavenly Valley Creek (USFS boundary to Trout Creek) and various water bodies in Alpine County, Jul 1980-Jun. 2010 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The natural receiving water temperature of all waters shall not be altered unless it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Regional Board that such an alteration in temperature does not adversely affect the water for beneficial uses. For waters designated WARM, water temperature shall not be altered by more than five degrees Fahrenheit above or below the natural temperature. For waters designated COLD, the temperature shall not be altered. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | Inland Fishes of California (Moyle 1976) states that for rainbow trout the optimum range for growth and completion of most life stages is 13-21 degrees C (page 129). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected at the following location: SW-05-Carson River, W Fork, Paynesville | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples collected between 7/8/1980 and 6/2/2010. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | South Tahoe Public Utility District Laboratory Quality Assurance Program by Terry Powers, Laboratory Director (March 30, 2009) | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | South Lake Tahoe Public Utility District Laboratory Quality Assurance Program | ||||
DECISION ID |
101086 |
Region 6 |
Carson River, West Fork (Woodfords to stateline) |
||
Pollutant: | Thallium |
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.
Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant, one for the COLD beneficial use, one for the COMM beneficial use and one for the MUN beneficial use. 0 of 1 samples exceed the objectives for the COMM and COLD beneficial use assessment; 1 of 1 samples exceed the objectives for the MUN beneficial use assessment. 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. 1 of 1 samples for the MUN beneficial use assessment and 0 of 1 samples for the COLD and COMM beneficial use assessments exceeded the objective and these sample sizes are insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples per beneficial use assessed are needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to SECTION 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Staff Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. 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: | 99080 | ||||
Pollutant: | Thallium | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed STORET data for Carson River, West Fork (Woodfords to State Line) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 1 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Thallium. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water quality data for federal, state, and tribal agencies submitted through the US EPA STorage and RETrival (STORET) database for the 2018 listing cycle. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The California Maximum Contaminant Level for thallium incorporated by reference in the Water Quality Control Plan, Lahontan Region is 0.002 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) (21NEV1_WQX-NV08-201-WF-001) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2012-04-18 and 2012-04-18 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | QAPP not required for federal data | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | This is a placeholder reference for data which does not require a QAPP. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 99078 | ||||
Pollutant: | Thallium | ||||
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 STORET data for Carson River, West Fork (Woodfords to State Line) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Thallium. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water quality data for federal, state, and tribal agencies submitted through the US EPA STorage and RETrival (STORET) database for the 2018 listing cycle. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-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 Gold Book states that thallium chronic toxicity to one species of fish occurs at concentrations as low as 20 ug/L after 2,6000 hours of exposure. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Quality Criteria for Water 1986. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Regulations and Standards. Washington D.C. EPA 440/5-86-001. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site(s) (21NEV1_WQX-NV08-201-WF-001) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2012-04-18 and 2012-04-18 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | QAPP not required for federal data | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | This is a placeholder reference for data which does not require a QAPP. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 99081 | ||||
Pollutant: | Thallium | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
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 STORET data for Carson River, West Fork (Woodfords to State Line) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Thallium. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water quality data for federal, state, and tribal agencies submitted through the US EPA STorage and RETrival (STORET) database for the 2018 listing cycle. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Thallium criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 6.3 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site(s) (21NEV1_WQX-NV08-201-WF-001) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2012-04-18 and 2012-04-18 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | QAPP not required for federal data | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | This is a placeholder reference for data which does not require a QAPP. | ||||
DECISION ID |
101091 |
Region 6 |
Carson River, West Fork (Woodfords to stateline) |
||
Pollutant: | Toxicity |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Staff Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the 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. 0 of the 1 samples exceed the 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. 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 do not satisfy the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 0 of 1 samples exceeded the guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples are needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to SECTION 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Staff Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. 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: | 100529 | ||||
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: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The sample was collected at station 633WCRSED. | ||||
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 | ||||
DECISION ID |
101094 |
Region 6 |
Carson River, West Fork (Woodfords to stateline) |
||
Pollutant: | Zinc |
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. 0 of the 1 samples exceed the water quality 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. 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 do not satisfy the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 0 of 1 samples exceeded the guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples are needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to SECTION 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Staff Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. 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: | 100521 | ||||
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 Carson River, West Fork (Woodfords to Paynesville) 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 Carson River, West Fork (Woodfords to Paynesville) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ West Fork Carson River at Paynesville] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 9/22/2008. | ||||
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 |
101095 |
Region 6 |
Carson River, West Fork (Woodfords to stateline) |
||
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.
Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of the 0 samples exceed the water quality objective for all beneficial uses. Because the water quality objective for pH requires background information on water quality conditions in the West Fork Carson River which are not available, no assessment can be made. The resulting sample/exceedance rate is therefore 0 of 0 samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the 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 does not satisfy the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 0 of 0 samples exceeded the objective and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 26 samples are needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.2. 4. Pursuant to SECTION 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board 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: | 129786 | ||||
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 Perennial Stream Surveys. | ||||
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) (633PS0142) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2014-06-30 and 2014-06-30 | ||||
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: | 129562 | ||||
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 Alpine Watershed Group Monitoring Program. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-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) (WF-PNSV) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-09-11 and 2017-03-11 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Alpine Watershed Group Volunteer Citizen Water Quality Monitoring Program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Alpine Watershed Group Volunteer Citizen Water Quality Monitoring Program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 129859 | ||||
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 data for federal, state, and tribal agencies submitted through the US EPA STorage and RETrival (STORET) database for the 2018 listing cycle. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-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) (21NEV1_WQX-NV08-201-WF-001) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2011-06-07 and 2012-07-18 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | QAPP not required for federal data | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | This is a placeholder reference for data which does not require a QAPP. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 129538 | ||||
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) (633WFCB02) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2014-12-08 and 2015-11-19 | ||||
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: | 129774 | ||||
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) (633WFCB02) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2014-12-08 and 2015-11-19 | ||||
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: | 129849 | ||||
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 data for federal, state, and tribal agencies submitted through the US EPA STorage and RETrival (STORET) database for the 2018 listing cycle. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-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) (21NEV1_WQX-NV08-201-WF-001) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2011-06-07 and 2012-07-18 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | QAPP not required for federal data | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | This is a placeholder reference for data which does not require a QAPP. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 129791 | ||||
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 Perennial Stream Surveys. | ||||
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) (633PS0142) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2014-06-30 and 2014-06-30 | ||||
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: | 129753 | ||||
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 Alpine Watershed Group Monitoring Program. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-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) (WF-PNSV) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-09-11 and 2017-03-11 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Alpine Watershed Group Volunteer Citizen Water Quality Monitoring Program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Alpine Watershed Group Volunteer Citizen Water Quality Monitoring Program | ||||
DECISION ID |
101066 |
Region 6 |
Carson River, West Fork (Woodfords to stateline) |
||
Pollutant: | Iron |
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 3.1 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, one for the COLD beneficial use and one for the MUN beneficial use. This decision is based on data assessed against the MUN beneficial use. 2 of the 4 samples exceed the California Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) for iron in water designated MUN. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the 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. 2 of 4 samples exceed the objective for the MUN beneficial use and this exceeds 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 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: | 99044 | ||||
Pollutant: | Iron | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
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 STORET data for Carson River, West Fork (Woodfords to State Line) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 2 of 4 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Iron. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water quality data for federal, state, and tribal agencies submitted through the US EPA STorage and RETrival (STORET) database for the 2018 listing cycle. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-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) (21NEV1_WQX-NV08-201-WF-001) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2011-06-07 and 2012-07-18 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | QAPP not required for federal data | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | This is a placeholder reference for data which does not require a QAPP. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 99043 | ||||
Pollutant: | Iron | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
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 STORET data for Carson River, West Fork (Woodfords to State Line) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Iron. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water quality data for federal, state, and tribal agencies submitted through the US EPA STorage and RETrival (STORET) database for the 2018 listing cycle. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-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) (21NEV1_WQX-NV08-201-WF-001) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2011-06-07 and 2012-07-18 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | QAPP not required for federal data | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | This is a placeholder reference for data which does not require a QAPP. | ||||
DECISION ID |
101076 |
Region 6 |
Carson River, West Fork (Woodfords to stateline) |
||
Pollutant: | Nitrogen |
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 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 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. 2 of 5 samples exceed the water quality objective. 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 satisfy the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 2 of 5 samples exceeded the objective and this exceeds the allowable frequency as stipulated in table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to SECTION 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Staff Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should 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: | 96715 | ||||
Pollutant: | Nitrogen | ||||
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: | Data were collected by Lahontan field staff for the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Perennial Stream Surveys. Data were collected on one day in 2014. The concentration was reported as 0.19 mg/L, which attains the site specific objective. The computed annual average is based on only one data point. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for the SWAMP Perennial Stream Surveys. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The site specific objective for chloride in the West Fork Carson River, as referenced in the Lahontan Basin Plan table 3-14, is an annual average concentration not to exceed 2.5 mg/L. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected at one monitoring site, 633PS0142, which is located upstream of the Diamond Valley Road bridge (known locally as Paynesville Bridge). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data were collected on one day in June 2014. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | The West Fork Carson River is an interstate river with headwaters near the Sierra Nevada crest and its lowest point in California in the Carson Valley. It joins the East Fork to form the Carson River in Nevada. Water from the West Fork is used for irrigation of pasture and some field crops in the Carson Valley in California, and it contributes to the irrigation supply in Nevada. | ||||
QAPP Information: | Data were collected in accordance with the SWAMP QAPP. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 100489 | ||||
Pollutant: | Nitrogen | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Not Recorded | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Not Specified | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Unspecified--This LOE is a placeholder to support a 303(d) listing decision made prior to 2006. | ||||
Data Reference: | Placeholder data and information reference for pre-2006 303(d) | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Unspecified | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Placeholder for standard, guideline and criteria referenced for pre-2006 303(d). | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | Unspecified | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Placeholder for standard, guideline and criteria referenced for pre-2006 303(d). | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Unspecified | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Unspecified | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Unspecified | ||||
QAPP Information: | Unspecified | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | South Lake Tahoe Public Utility District Laboratory Quality Assurance Program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 96709 | ||||
Pollutant: | Nitrogen | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
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: | Data were collected by Lahontan field staff performing routine monitoring for the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). Data were collected in 2014 and 2015. Concentrations in the raw data ranged from 0.026 to 0.076 mg/L. Two annual averages were computed, none of which exceeded the site specific objective. The average computed for 2014 is based on only one data point. | ||||
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 site specific objective for nitrogen in the West Fork Carson River, as referenced in the Lahontan Basin Plan table 3-14, is an annual average concentration not to exceed 0.25 mg/L. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected at one monitoring site, 633WFCB02, which is located downstream of the Diamond Valley Road bridge to the east of Chambers Lane. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data were collected on one day in December 2014, and once per quarter in 2015. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | The West Fork Carson River is an interstate river with headwaters near the Sierra Nevada crest and its lowest point in California in the Carson Valley. It joins the East Fork to form the Carson River in Nevada. Water from the West Fork is used for irrigation of pasture and some field crops in the Carson Valley in California, and it contributes to the irrigation supply in Nevada. | ||||
QAPP Information: | Data were collected in accordance with the SWAMP QAPP. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 96791 | ||||
Pollutant: | Total Nitrogen as N | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 2 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Data were collected by the Nevada Department of Environmental Quality and consist of three years of two to four times a year sampling. Six of the nine individual samples contained Total Nitrogen concentrations that were reported to be below the quantification limit. Those data could not be assessed because the quantification limit is not known. The remaining three samples result in two annual mean of monthly mean values, both of which exceed the water quality objective for Total Nitrogen of 0.25 mg/L. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water quality data for federal, state, and tribal agencies submitted through the US EPA STorage and RETrival (STORET) database for the 2018 listing cycle. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The site-specific objective for Total Nitrogen for the West Fork Carson River at Stateline in the Lahontan Basin Plan Table 3-14 is a mean of monthly mean value of 0.25 mg/L that is calculated on an annual basis. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The data were collected by the Nevada Department of Environmental Protection at the West Fork Carson River at Paynesville site 21NEV1_WQX-NV08-201-WF-001 | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data were collected two to four times a year during 2011-2013. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | The West Fork Carson River is an interstate river with headwaters near the Sierra Nevada crest and its lowest point in California in the Carson Valley. It joins the East Fork to form the Carson River in Nevada. Water from the West Fork is used for irrigation of pasture and some field crops in the Carson Valley in California, and it contributes to the irrigation supply in Nevada. | ||||
QAPP Information: | These are data from the US EPA STorage and RETrival (STORET) database that do not require a QAPP. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | This is a placeholder reference for data which does not require a QAPP. | ||||
DECISION ID |
101073 |
Region 6 |
Carson River, West Fork (Woodfords to stateline) |
||
Pollutant: | Nitrogen, Nitrate |
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 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 3 of the 9 samples exceed the site specific objective for nitrate. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the 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. 3 of 9 samples exceed the objective and this exceeds 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 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: | 100538 | ||||
Pollutant: | Nitrate | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 9 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 3 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical monitoring (conventional pollutants only) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Three out of 9 annual means of monthly means exceeded the water quality objective for nitrate as nitrogen expressed as an annual mean of monthly means. A total of 137 samples were collected from the site. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for temperature, nutrients, and bacteria in Heavenly Valley Creek (USFS boundary to Trout Creek) and various water bodies in Alpine County, Jul 1980-Jun. 2010 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The site specific objective for West Fork Carson River at Stateline for nitrate as nitrogen is is 0.03 mg/L as means of monthly means. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected at SW-05 Carson River, W Fork, Paynesville. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected monthly from January 2002 to June 2010. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Samples were collected by STPUD and analyzed using STPUD Laboratory quality assurance program. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | South Lake Tahoe Public Utility District Laboratory Quality Assurance Program | ||||
DECISION ID |
101084 |
Region 6 |
Carson River, West Fork (Woodfords to stateline) |
||
Pollutant: | Sulfates |
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 3.2 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. 30 of the 31 samples exceed the site specific objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the 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. 30 of 31 samples exceed the objective and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Staff Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are exceeded and a pollutant contributes to or causes the problem. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 96788 | ||||
Pollutant: | Sulfates | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
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: | Data were collected by the Nevada Department of Environmental Protection and consist of three years of one to four times a year sampling resulting in three annual mean of monthly mean values. Sulfate concentrations in all of the samples collected were reported to be below the quantification limit, however it is not possible to assess compliance with the sulfate objective because the quantification limit is not known. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water quality data for federal, state, and tribal agencies submitted through the US EPA STorage and RETrival (STORET) database for the 2018 listing cycle. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The site-specific objective for Sulfate for the West Fork Carson River at Stateline in the Lahontan Basin Plan Table 3-14 is a mean of monthly mean value of 2.0 mg/L calculated on an annual basis. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The data were collected by the Nevada Department of Environmental Protection at the West Fork Carson River at Paynesville site 21NEV1_WQX-NV08-201-WF-001 | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data were collected one to four times a year during 2011-2013. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | The West Fork Carson River is an interstate river with headwaters near the Sierra Nevada crest and its lowest point in California in the Carson Valley. It joins the East Fork to form the Carson River in Nevada. Water from the West Fork is used for irrigation of pasture and some field crops in the Carson Valley in California, and it contributes to the irrigation supply in Nevada. | ||||
QAPP Information: | These are data from the US EPA STorage and RETrival (STORET) database that do not require a QAPP. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | This is a placeholder reference for data which does not require a QAPP. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 96711 | ||||
Pollutant: | Sulfates | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 2 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Data were collected by Lahontan field staff performing routine monitoring for the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). Data were collected in 2014 and 2015. Concentrations in the raw data ranged from 2.06 to 3.55 mg/L. Two annual averages were computed, both of which exceeded the site specific objective. The average computed for 2014 is based on only one data point. | ||||
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 site specific objective for sulfates in the West Fork Carson River, as referenced in the Lahontan Basin Plan table 3-14, is an annual average concentration not to exceed 2.0 mg/L. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected at one monitoring site, 633WFCB02, which is located downstream of the Diamond Valley Road bridge to the east of Chambers Lane. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data were collected on one day in December 2014, and once per quarter in 2015. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | The West Fork Carson River is an interstate river with headwaters near the Sierra Nevada crest and its lowest point in California in the Carson Valley. It joins the East Fork to form the Carson River in Nevada. Water from the West Fork is used for irrigation of pasture and some field crops in the Carson Valley in California, and it contributes to the irrigation supply in Nevada. | ||||
QAPP Information: | Data were collected in accordance with the SWAMP QAPP. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 96717 | ||||
Pollutant: | Sulfates | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Data were collected by Lahontan field staff for the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Perennial Stream Surveys. Data were collected on one day in 2014. The concentration was reported as 2.02 mg/L, which exceeds the site specific objective by .02 mg/L. The computed annual average is based on only one data point. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for the SWAMP Perennial Stream Surveys. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The site specific objective for sulfates in the West Fork Carson River, as referenced in the Lahontan Basin Plan table 3-14, is an annual average concentration not to exceed 2.0 mg/L. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected at one monitoring site, 633PS0142, which is located upstream of the Diamond Valley Road bridge (known locally as Paynesville Bridge). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data were collected on one day in June 2014. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | The West Fork Carson River is an interstate river with headwaters near the Sierra Nevada crest and its lowest point in California in the Carson Valley. It joins the East Fork to form the Carson River in Nevada. Water from the West Fork is used for irrigation of pasture and some field crops in the Carson Valley in California, and it contributes to the irrigation supply in Nevada. | ||||
QAPP Information: | Data were collected in accordance with the SWAMP QAPP. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 100465 | ||||
Pollutant: | Sulfates | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 28 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 27 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Data were collected over a 28 year period. On 27 of those years, the annual average exceeded 2.0 mg/L. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for temperature, nutrients, and bacteria in Heavenly Valley Creek (USFS boundary to Trout Creek) and various water bodies in Alpine County, Jul 1980-Jun. 2010 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The site-specific objective for sulfate in the West Fork Carson River at Stateline is 2.0 mg/L as a mean of monthly means. See Basin Plan Table 3-14. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Sample collected at the following locations: SW-05-Carson River, W Fork, Paynesville | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples collected between 9/12/1983 and 6/2/2010. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | South Tahoe Public Utility District Laboratory Quality Assurance Program (by Terry Powers, Laboratory Director). March 30, 2009. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | South Lake Tahoe Public Utility District Laboratory Quality Assurance Program | ||||
DECISION ID |
101087 |
Region 6 |
Carson River, West Fork (Woodfords to stateline) |
||
Pollutant: | Total Dissolved Solids |
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 3.2 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. 10 of the 44 samples exceed the site specific objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the 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. 10 of 44 samples exceed the objective and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Staff Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are exceeded and a pollutant contributes to or causes the problem. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 100474 | ||||
Pollutant: | Total Dissolved Solids | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 31 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 3 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Data were collected over 31 years. For three of those years, the annual average exceeded 70 mg/L. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for temperature, nutrients, and bacteria in Heavenly Valley Creek (USFS boundary to Trout Creek) and various water bodies in Alpine County, Jul 1980-Jun. 2010 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The site-specific objective for total dissolved solids (TDS) in the West Fork Carson River at Stateline is 70 mg/L as a mean of monthly means. See Lahontan Basin Plan Table 3-14. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Sample collected at the following locations: SW-05-Carson River, W Fork, Paynesville | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples collected between 7/8/1980 and 6/2/2010. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | South Tahoe Public Utility District Laboratory Quality Assurance Program (by Terry Powers, Laboratory Director). March 30, 2009. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | South Lake Tahoe Public Utility District Laboratory Quality Assurance Program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 96789 | ||||
Pollutant: | Total Dissolved Solids | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
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: | Data were collected by the Nevada Department of Environmental Protection and consist of three years of two to four times a year sampling resulting in three annual mean of monthly mean values. The concentration of Total Dissolved Solids in the six samples ranged from 46 mg/L to 70 mg/L and none of the three annual mean of monthly mean values exceeded the 70 mg/L objective. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water quality data for federal, state, and tribal agencies submitted through the US EPA STorage and RETrival (STORET) database for the 2018 listing cycle. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The site-specific objective for Total Dissolved Solids for the West Fork Carson Rivers at Stateline in the Lahontan Basin Plan Table 3-14 is a mean of monthly mean value of 70 mg/L | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The data were collected by the Nevada Department of Environmental Protection at the West Fork Carson River at Paynesville site 21NEV1_WQX-NV08-201-WF-001 | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data were collected two to four times a year during 2011-2013. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | The West Fork Carson River is an interstate river with headwaters near the Sierra Nevada crest and its lowest point in California in the Carson Valley. It joins the East Fork to form the Carson River in Nevada. Water from the West Fork is used for irrigation of pasture and some field crops in the Carson Valley in California, and it contributes to the irrigation supply in Nevada. | ||||
QAPP Information: | These are data from the US EPA STorage and RETrival (STORET) database that do not require a QAPP. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | This is a placeholder reference for data which does not require a QAPP. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 96712 | ||||
Pollutant: | Total Dissolved Solids | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Data were collected by Lahontan field staff performing routine monitoring for the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). Data were collected in 2014 and 2015. Concentrations in the raw data ranged from 50 to 74 mg/L. Two annual averages were computed, one of which exceeded the site specific objective in 2014. The average computed for 2014 is based on only one data point. | ||||
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 site specific objective for total dissolved solids in the West Fork Carson River, as referenced in the Lahontan Basin Plan table 3-14, is an annual average concentration not to exceed 70 mg/L. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected at one monitoring site, 633WFCB02, which is located downstream of the Diamond Valley Road bridge to the east of Chambers Lane. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data were collected on one day in December 2014, and once per quarter in 2015. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | The West Fork Carson River is an interstate river with headwaters near the Sierra Nevada crest and its lowest point in California in the Carson Valley. It joins the East Fork to form the Carson River in Nevada. Water from the West Fork is used for irrigation of pasture and some field crops in the Carson Valley in California, and it contributes to the irrigation supply in Nevada. | ||||
QAPP Information: | Data were collected in accordance with the SWAMP QAPP. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 96713 | ||||
Pollutant: | Total Dissolved Solids | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 8 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 6 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Data were collected by the Alpine Watershed Group for their Monitoring Program. Data were collected from September 2010 to March 2017. Concentrations in the raw data ranged from 50 to 120 mg/L. Eight annual averages were computed, six of which exceeded the site specific objective in 2010 and 2012 through 2017. The average computed for 2017 is based on only one data point. In the year in which the standard was attained, 2011, the annual average was equal to 70 mg/L. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for Alpine Watershed Group Monitoring Program. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The site specific objective for total dissolved solids in the West Fork Carson River, as referenced in the Lahontan Basin Plan table 3-14, is an annual average concentration not to exceed 70 mg/L. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected at one monitoring site, WF-PNSV, which is located downstream of the Diamond Valley Road bridge (known locally as the Paynesville Bridge) to the east of Chambers Lane. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data were collected quarterly between September 2010 and March 2017. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | The West Fork Carson River is an interstate river with headwaters near the Sierra Nevada crest and its lowest point in California in the Carson Valley. It joins the East Fork to form the Carson River in Nevada. Water from the West Fork is used for irrigation of pasture and some field crops in the Carson Valley in California, and it contributes to the irrigation supply in Nevada. | ||||
QAPP Information: | Data were collected in accordance with the Alpine Watershed Group QAPP. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Alpine Watershed Group Volunteer Citizen Water Quality Monitoring Program | ||||
DECISION ID |
101089 |
Region 6 |
Carson River, West Fork (Woodfords to stateline) |
||
Pollutant: | Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) |
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 3.1 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. 3 of the 11 samples exceed the site specific objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the 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. 3 of 11 samples exceed the objective and this exceeds 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 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: | 96790 | ||||
Pollutant: | Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 2 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | TKN data were collected by the Nevada Department of Environmental Protection and consist of three years of two to four times a year sampling. Six of the nine individual samples were reported to contain TKN concentrations below the quantification limit. Those data could not be assessed because the quantification limit is not known. The remaining three samples result in two annual mean of monthly mean values, both of which exceed the water quality objective for TKN of 0.22 mg/L. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water quality data for federal, state, and tribal agencies submitted through the US EPA STorage and RETrival (STORET) database for the 2018 listing cycle. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The site-specific objective for Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen in the Lahontan Basin Plan Table 3-14 for the West Fork Carson River at Stateline is a mean of monthly mean value of 0.22 mg/L that is calculated on an annual basis. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The data were collected at the West Fork Carson River at Paynesville site 21NEV1_WQX-NV08-201-WF-001 | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The data were collected two to four times a year during 2011-2013. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | The West Fork Carson River is an interstate river with headwaters near the Sierra Nevada crest and its lowest point in California in the Carson Valley. It joins the East Fork to form the Carson River in Nevada. Water from the West Fork is used for irrigation of pasture and some field crops in the Carson Valley in California, and it contributes to the irrigation supply in Nevada. | ||||
QAPP Information: | These are data from the US EPA STorage and RETrival (STORET) database that do not require a QAPP. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | This is a placeholder reference for data which does not require a QAPP. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 100539 | ||||
Pollutant: | Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 9 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical monitoring (conventional pollutants only) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | One out of 9 annual means of monthly means exceeded the water quality objective for Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen expressed as an annual mean of monthly means. A total of 137 samples were collected from the site. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for temperature, nutrients, and bacteria in Heavenly Valley Creek (USFS boundary to Trout Creek) and various water bodies in Alpine County, Jul 1980-Jun. 2010 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The site specific objective for West Fork Carson River at Stateline for Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen is 0.22 mg/L as means of monthly means. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected at SW-05 Carson River, W Fork, Paynesville. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected monthly from January 2002 to June 2010. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Samples were collected by STPUD and analyzed using STPUD Laboratory quality assurance program. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | South Lake Tahoe Public Utility District Laboratory Quality Assurance Program | ||||
DECISION ID |
101093 |
Region 6 |
Carson River, West Fork (Woodfords to stateline) |
||
Pollutant: | Turbidity |
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 3.2 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. 18 of the 44 samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the 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. 18 of 44 samples exceed the objective and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Staff Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are exceeded and a pollutant contributes to or causes the problem. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 99033 | ||||
Pollutant: | Turbidity | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 3 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 3 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed STORET data for Carson River, West Fork (Woodfords to State Line) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 3 of 6 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Turbidity. For purposes of this assessment the mean of monthly means is calculated on an annual basis, giving three years possible for assessment using this data. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water quality data for federal, state, and tribal agencies submitted through the US EPA STorage and RETrival (STORET) database for the 2018 listing cycle. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The watershed-wide objective for turbidity in the West Fork Carson River hydrologic unit, as stipulated in the Lahontan Basin Plan page 3-9, is a mean-of-monthly means not to exceed 2 NTU. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
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) (21NEV1_WQX-NV08-201-WF-001) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2011-06-07 and 2012-07-18 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | QAPP not required for federal data | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | This is a placeholder reference for data which does not require a QAPP. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 97523 | ||||
Pollutant: | Turbidity | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 8 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Alpine Watershed Group Monitoring Program data for Carson River, West Fork (Woodfords to State Line) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 1 of 8 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Turbidity. For purposes of this assessment the mean of monthly means is calculated on an annual basis, giving eight years possible for assessment using this data. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for Alpine Watershed Group Monitoring Program. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The watershed-wide objective for turbidity in the West Fork Carson River hydrologic unit, as stipulated in the Lahontan Basin Plan page 3-9, is a mean-of-monthly means not to exceed 2 NTU. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
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) (WF-PNSV) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-09-11 and 2017-03-11 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Alpine Watershed Group Volunteer Citizen Water Quality Monitoring Program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Alpine Watershed Group Volunteer Citizen Water Quality Monitoring Program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 97790 | ||||
Pollutant: | Turbidity | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP Perennial Stream Surveys data for Carson River, West Fork (Woodfords to State Line) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 1 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Turbidity. For purposes of this assessment the mean of monthly means is calculated on an annual basis, giving one year possible for assessment using this data. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for the SWAMP Perennial Stream Surveys. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The watershed-wide objective for turbidity in the West Fork Carson River hydrologic unit, as stipulated in the Lahontan Basin Plan page 3-9, is a mean-of-monthly means not to exceed 2 NTU. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
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) (633PS0142) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2014-06-30 and 2014-06-30 | ||||
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: | 100473 | ||||
Pollutant: | Turbidity | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 30 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 13 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Data were collected over 30 years. For 13 of those years, the annual average exceeded 2 NTU. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for temperature, nutrients, and bacteria in Heavenly Valley Creek (USFS boundary to Trout Creek) and various water bodies in Alpine County, Jul 1980-Jun. 2010 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Lahontan Basin Plan's objective for turbidity states: "The turbidity shall not be raised above a mean of monthly means value of 2 NTU. (This objective is approximately equal to the State of Nevada standard of 2 NTU annual mean)." This is a watershed-specific objective that differs from the regionwide narrative objective. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Sample collected at the following locations: SW-05-Carson River, W Fork, Paynesville | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples collected between 7/8/1980 and 6/2/2010. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | South Tahoe Public Utility District Laboratory Quality Assurance Program (by Terry Powers, Laboratory Director). March 30, 2009. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | South Lake Tahoe Public Utility District Laboratory Quality Assurance Program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 98493 | ||||
Pollutant: | Turbidity | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
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 RWB6 Monitoring data for Carson River, West Fork (Woodfords to State Line) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Turbidity. For purposes of this assessment the mean of monthly means is calculated on an annual basis, giving two years possible for assessment using this data. | ||||
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 watershed-wide objective for turbidity in the West Fork Carson River hydrologic unit, as stipulated in the Lahontan Basin Plan page 3-9, is a mean-of-monthly means not to exceed 2 NTU. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
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) (633WFCB02) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2014-12-08 and 2015-11-19 | ||||
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 | ||||