| Water Body Name: | Pit River, North Fork |
| Water Body ID: | CAR5265201620080909193959 |
| Water Body Type: | River & Stream |
DECISION ID |
10243 |
Region 5 |
Pit River, North Fork |
||
| 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 Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for listing under sections 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Data is available from 1 line of evidence for this pollutant. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is not sufficient justification for placing this water segment-pollution combination on the section 303(d) list. The recommendation is based on staff findings that 1 of 149 available concentrations exceeded the water quality objective and this does not exceed the allowable frequency using the BinomBal program provided by the SWRCB. The BinomBal program calculates a sample size of 149 having a listing requirement when 25 or more samples exceed the evaluation criteria.
The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board 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. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
| USEPA Action (if applicable): | |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 21036 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Specific Conductivity | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 149 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | One of the 149 samples collected by the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program exceeded the "recommended" Secondary MCL of 900 uS/cm for electrical conductivity | ||||
| Data Reference: | SWAMP data entered by SWRCB into BDAT database | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The secondary MCLs for electrical conductivity provide a range of values including a "recommended" level (900 uS/cm), upper level (1600 uS/cm) and a short-term level (2200 uS/cm). The recommended concentration was used as it is intended to be protective of all drinking water uses | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 4, Chapter 15. Domestic Water Quality and Monitoring | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the North Fork Pit River in Alturas, at North Fork (XL Ranch), and at USFS bridge near Likely | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between April 5, 2001 and September 12, 2002 | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Monitoring was conducted in accordance with the State Water Resources Control Board's Quality Assurance Program Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
15954 |
Region 5 |
Pit River, North Fork |
||
| Pollutant: | pH |
| 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: | 2021 |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Seventy-two of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Seventy-two of 149 samples exceed the pH objective outlined in the Basin Plan 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 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. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
| USEPA Action (if applicable): | USEPA approved the listing of this water body as a water quality limited segment requiring a TMDL for this pollutant. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 7913 | ||||
| Pollutant: | pH | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 149 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 72 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Not Specified | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | 72 of the 149 samples collected by the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program exceeded the evaluation objective for pH. | ||||
| Data Reference: | SWAMP data entered by SWRCB into BDAT database | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | pH levels should not be lower than 6.5 or higher than 8.5 (Basin Plan Objective) | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
| SWAMP data entered by SWRCB into BDAT database | |||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected at North Fork Pit in Alturas. Samples were collected at Pit @ North Fork (XL Ranch). Samples were collected at Pit @ USFS bridge near Likely. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected from Apr 5 2001 to Sep 12 2002 | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Monitoring was conducted in accordance with the State Water Resources Control Board's Quality Assurance Program Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||