Draft California 2020 Integrated Report (303(d) List/305(b) Report)

Supporting Information

Regional Board 6 - Lahontan Region

Water Body Name:	West Walker River
Water Body ID:	CAR6311006019980805123547
Water Body Type:	River & Stream


DECISION ID	71074	Region 6
West Walker River

Pollutant:	Boron
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:	A Source Unknown
Expected TMDL Completion Date:	2025
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. Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 10 of 14 samples exceed the water quality objective for COLD beneficial use. 0 of 10 samples exceed the criteria for MUN beneficial use. 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 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 10 samples exceeded the criteria for MUN beneficial use and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy; 4.10 of 14 samples exceeded the objective for COLD beneficial use and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy; 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are 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 removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

State Board Decision Recommendation:

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 71074, Boron	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

96570

Pollutant:

Boron

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

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 times a year sampling resulting in three annual averages. The Boron concentration was below the quantification limit for one of the six samples and that sample was not used in the assessment because the quantification limit is not known. The remaining five samples ranged between 0.1 mg/L and 0.4 mg/L. All three of the annual average values exceeded the objective for Boron of 0.1 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 Boron for the data collected at the West Walker River at Topaz Lane site is found in Table 3-15 in the Lahontan Basin Plan for Topaz Lake and is an annual average value of 0.1 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 Walker River at Topaz Lane site 21NEV1_WQX-NV09-302-WF-001

Temporal Representation:

Data were collected twice a year between 2011-2013.

Environmental Conditions:

The West Walker River is an interstate river, influenced by geothermal springs, agricultural and highway drainage. The watershed was affected by wildfire in 2002. The headwaters near Sierra Nevada crest; Coleville is in an area transitional to Great Basin environmental conditions. In addition to the Cold Freshwater Habitat beneficial use, the West Walker River is designated for the Spawning, Reproduction and Development use.

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 that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 71074, Boron	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

32232

Pollutant:

Boron

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

The annual average of Boron for 2007 for this data set was 0.20 mg/L which exceeds the site-specific Water Quality Objective.

Data Reference:

RWB6 Trend Monitoring CY2006 CY2007

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

The site-specific objective for Boron in the Lahontan Basin Plan page 3-42, states that the annual average for Boron shall not exceed 0.10 mg/L.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended)

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Data was collected at the following station: 631WWK001 (West Walker River, at Coleville).

Temporal Representation:

Samples were collected between 8/8/2007 - 12/26/2007.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

2002 QAMP (Quality Assurance Management Plan) for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 71074, Boron	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

7779

Pollutant:

Boron

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

The U.S. Geological Survey sampled boron under the Region 6 SWAMP program between 2002 and 2005. Boron concentrations in 10 samples ranged from 12 to 134 ug/L. The criterion was not exceeded.

Data Reference:

2007. SWAMP Data for the West Walker River and East Walker River Hydrologic Units

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

The California State Notification Level criterion for boron is 1000 ug/L.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Compilation of Water Quality Goals

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

One station, West Walker River near Coleville, was sampled.

Temporal Representation:

Ten quarterly samples were collected between 2002 and 2005.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Data meet the quality assurance requirements of the SWAMP QAPP.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 71074, Boron	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

96699

Pollutant:

Boron

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

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 between September 2010 and October 2015. Raw data concentrations ranged from 0.007 to 0.653 mg/L. Six annual averages were computed, four of which exceeded the site specific objective from 2012 through 2015.

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 Walker River, as referenced in the Lahontan Basin Plan table 3-15, is an annual average not to exceed 0.10 mg/L.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended)

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Data were collected from one site, 631WWK001, which is located south of the town of Walker downstream of the confluence with Rock Creek.

Temporal Representation:

Data were collected in predominantly quarterly fashion between September 2010 and October 2015.

Environmental Conditions:

Boron in the West Walker River watershed comes almost entirely from natural sources. The most significant source of boron is probably Fales Hot Springs, although groundwater data show evidence of geothermal influence in the Antelope Valley area. The Fales Hot Springs discharge into Hot Creek, a tributary of the Little Walker River. A 1956 sample from Hot Creek had a boron concentration of 3300 ug/L. There are no point source POTW discharges in the watershed. The only known anthropogenic source of boron is the aerial application of borate fire retardants to fight wildfires.

QAPP Information:

Data were collected in accordance with the SWAMP QAPP.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 71074, Boron	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

4924

Pollutant:

Boron

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

The U.S. Geological Survey sampled boron under the Region 6 SWAMP program between 2002 and 2005. Boron concentrations in 10 samples ranged from 12 to 151 ug/L.
Boron concentrations varied with flow. The highest concentration, 151 ug/L was observed at an instantaneous discharge of 25 cubic feet per second (cfs) and the lowest concentration, 12 ug/L, was associated with a discharge of 1730 cfs. Annual averages (based on one to four samples per year) were 129, 104, 98, and 69 ug/L. The annual average objective was exceeded in the two years when the "average" was based on one or two samples..

Data Reference:

2007. SWAMP Data for the West Walker River and East Walker River Hydrologic Units

2000. Use Attainability Analysis for Nine "Naturally Impaired" Waters of the Lahontan Region. April 2000

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

The site-specific objective for boron includes an annual average of 0.10 mg/L (= 100 ug/L) and a 90th percentile value of 0.20 mg/L (= 200 ug//L). See Lahontan Basin Plan Table 3-15.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended)

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

One station, West Walker River near Coleville, was sampled.

Temporal Representation:

Ten quarterly samples were collected including one sample in 20002, two samples in 2003, four samples in 2004 and three samples in 2005. between 2002 and 2005.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Data meet the quality assurance requirements of the SWAMP QAPP.

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	79021	Region 6
West Walker River

Pollutant:	Chloride
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:	A Source Unknown
Expected TMDL Completion Date:	2025
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant, five for the cold beneficial use and one for the MUN beneficial use. 9 of 15 of the samples exceed the water quality objective for COLD beneficial use. Zero of 12 samples exceeded the criteria for MUN beneficial use. 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 section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of 12 samples exceeded the criteria for MUN beneficial use and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. 9 of 15 samples exceeded the objective for COLD beneficial use and this does 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 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 removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

State Board Decision Recommendation:

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 79021, Chloride	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

96571

Pollutant:

Chloride

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

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 three times a year sampling. Seven of the nine samples contained chloride concentrations below the quantification limit and these samples were not used in the assessment because the quantification limit is not known. The remaining two samples each contained 8 mg/L., which results in two annual average values that both exceed the 3.0 mg/L Chloride 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 Chloride for the West Walker River at Coleville in the Lahontan Basin Plan Table 3-15 is an annual average value of 3.0 mg/L.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended)

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The data was collected by the Nevada Department of Environmental Protection at the West Fork Walker River at Topaz Lane site 21NEV1_WQX-NV09-302-WF-001

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected three times a year during 2011-2013.

Environmental Conditions:

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 that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 79021, Chloride	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

4926

Pollutant:

Chloride

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

The U.S. Geological Survey sampled chloride under the Region 6 SWAMP program between 2002 and 2005. Chloride concentrations in 12 samples ranged from 0.38 to 5.01 mg/L. The MCL was not exceeded.

Data Reference:

2007. SWAMP Data for the West Walker River and East Walker River Hydrologic Units

SWAMP Data:

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 chloride is 250 mg/L.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended)

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

One station, West Walker River near Coleville, was sampled.

Temporal Representation:

Twelve quarterly samples were collected between 2002 and 2005.

Environmental Conditions:

The West Walker River is an interstate river, influenced by geothermal springs, agricultural and highway drainage. . The watershed was affected by wildfire in 2002. The headwaters near Sierra Nevada crest; Coleville is in an area transitional to Great Basin environmental conditions. In addition to the Cold Freshwater Habitat beneficial use, the West Walker River is designated for the Spawning, Reproduction and Development use.

QAPP Information:

Data meet the quality assurance requirements of the SWAMP QAPP.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 79021, Chloride	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

96704

Pollutant:

Chloride

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data were collected by Lahontan field staff collecting data for the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Perennial Stream Surveys. Data were collected on two days, in August 2012 and July 2014 respectively. The raw data concentrations were 0.3 and 0.13 mg/L. Two annual averages were computed, none of which exceeded the site specific objective, although each of these annual averages was based on one data point only.

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 Walker River, as referenced in the Lahontan Basin Plan table 3-15, is an annual average not to exceed 3 mg/L.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended)

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Data in 2012 were collected from site 631PS0081, which is located above Levitt Station on the Sonora Pass Road. Data in 2014 were collected from site 631PS0145, which is located below the confluence of Leavitt Creek with the Walker River.

Temporal Representation:

Data were collected on two days, one in August 2012 and one in July 2014 respectively.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Data were collected in accordance with the SWAMP QAPP.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 79021, Chloride	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

96703

Pollutant:

Chloride

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

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 between September 2010 and October 2015. Raw data concentrations ranged from 0.41 to 7.17 mg/L. Six annual averages were computed, four of which exceeded the site specific objective from 2012 through 2015.

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 Walker River, as referenced in the Lahontan Basin Plan table 3-15, is an annual average not to exceed 3 mg/L.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended)

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Data were collected from one site, 631WWK001, which is located south of the town of Walker downstream of the confluence with Rock Creek.

Temporal Representation:

Data were collected in predominantly quarterly fashion between September 2010 and October 2015.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Data were collected in accordance with the SWAMP QAPP.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 79021, Chloride	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

32239

Pollutant:

Chloride

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

The annual average for CL for this data set was 5.45 mg/L which exceeds the Water Quality Objective.

Data Reference:

RWB6 Trend Monitoring CY2006 CY2007

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

The site-specific objective for Chloride in the Lahontan Basin Plan page 3-42, states that the annual average for Chloride shall not exceed 3.0 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 the following station: 631WWK001 - West Walker River, at Coleville.

Temporal Representation:

Samples were collected between 8/8/2007 and 12/26/2007.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

2002 QAMP (Quality Assurance Management Plan) for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 79021, Chloride	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

4925

Pollutant:

Chloride

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

The U.S. Geological Survey sampled chloride under the Region 6 SWAMP program between 2002 and 2005. Chloride concentrations in 12 samples ranged from 0.38 to 5.01 mg/L. The annual average objective was exceeded in two of four years.

Data Reference:

2007. SWAMP Data for the West Walker River and East Walker River Hydrologic Units

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

The site-specific objective for chloride includes an annual average of 3.0 mg/L and a 90th percentile value of 5.0 mg/L (Lahontan Basin Plan Table 3-15).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended)

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

One station, West Walker River near Coleville, was sampled.

Temporal Representation:

Twelve quarterly samples were collected between 2002 and 2005. Four annual average calculations were done.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Data meet the quality assurance requirements of the SWAMP QAPP.

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	101188	Region 6
West Walker River

Pollutant:	Aldrin
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 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 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 satisfies 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 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.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

State Board Decision Recommendation:

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 101188, Aldrin	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

99499

Pollutant:

Aldrin

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Fish fillet

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP Sportfish Rivers and Streams data for West Walker River to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows 0 of the 1 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Aldrin. Data were collected for 1 fish species (1 composite(s) of Rainbow Trout each composed of 5 fish per composite).

Data Reference:

Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP Sportfish Rivers and Streams.

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region)

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended)

Evaluation Guideline:

National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Aldrin concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.

Guideline Reference:

National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Spatial Representation:

Data was collected from 1 station(s) with the station code(s): 631WWK011.

Temporal Representation:

Data for this line of evidence were collected between 2011-08-16 and 2011-08-16

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program


DECISION ID	101189	Region 6
West Walker River

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 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 35 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 35 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 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:

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 101189, Alkalinity as CaCO3	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

97742

Pollutant:

Alkalinity as CaCO3

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP Perennial Stream Surveys data for West Walker River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 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:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 2 monitoring site(s) (631PS0081, 631PS0145)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2012-08-28 and 2014-07-02

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 101189, Alkalinity as CaCO3	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

98126

Pollutant:

Alkalinity as CaCO3

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB6 Monitoring data for West Walker River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 27 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:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site(s) (631WWK001)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-09-13 and 2015-10-15

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 101189, Alkalinity as CaCO3	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

99016

Pollutant:

Alkalinity as CaCO3

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed STORET data for West Walker River 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:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site(s) (21NEV1_WQX-NV09-302-WF-001)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2011-03-09 and 2012-08-07

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

QAPP not required for federal data

QAPP Information Reference(s):

This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements.


DECISION ID	101203	Region 6
West Walker River

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 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 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 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 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.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

State Board Decision Recommendation:

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 101203, Ammonia	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

97666

Pollutant:

Nitrogen, ammonia (Total Ammonia)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

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 2 monitoring site(s) (631PS0081, 631PS0145)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2012-08-28 and 2014-07-02

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program


DECISION ID	101190	Region 6
West Walker River

Pollutant:	Anatoxin-A
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 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 2 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 2 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 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.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

State Board Decision Recommendation:

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 101190, Anatoxin-A	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

99157

Pollutant:

Anatoxin-A

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Fish fillet

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP Sportfish Rivers and Streams data for West Walker River to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows 0 of the 2 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Anatoxin-A. Data were collected for 2 fish species (1 composite(s) of Rainbow Trout each composed of 1 fish per composite, 1 composite(s) of Rainbow Trout each composed of 5 fish per composite).

Data Reference:

Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP Sportfish Rivers and Streams.

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended)

Evaluation Guideline:

The 5000 ng/g wet weight action level for Anatoxin-A for edible sport fish and shellfish identifies the maximum concentration of cyanotoxins that a typical consumer (one meal per week) could ingest without exceeding the reference dose.(OEHHA 2012)

Guideline Reference:

Toxicological Summary and Suggested Action Levels to Reduce Potential Adverse Health Effects of Six Cyanotoxins

Spatial Representation:

Data was collected from 1 station(s) with the station code(s): 631WWK011.

Temporal Representation:

Data for this line of evidence were collected between 2011-08-16 and 2011-08-16

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program


DECISION ID	78116	Region 6
West Walker River

Pollutant:	Arsenic
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board 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. Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant, two for the COLD beneficial use in the water matrix, two for the COLD beneficial use in the sediment matrix and two for the MUN beneficial use in the water matrix. This decision is based on the COLD beneficial use in the water matrix and is as follows: 0 of the 7 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 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 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 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.

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.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 78116, Arsenic	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

100292

Pollutant:

Arsenic

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends data for West Walker River to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 3 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Arsenic .

Data Reference:

Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends.

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended)

Evaluation Guideline:

The evaluation guideline for Arsenic from MacDonald et al., 2000a which states that the probable effect concentration for Arsenic is 33 mg/kg. (dw = Dry Weight)

Guideline Reference:

Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31

Spatial Representation:

Data were collected from 1 (Station Codes: 631WWKLAR).

Temporal Representation:

Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2010-10-06 to 2013-10-09

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 78116, Arsenic	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

43973

Pollutant:

Arsenic

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for West Walker River 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 West Walker River was collected at 1 monitoring site [ West Walker River at Topaz]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on a single day 9/23/2008.

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 78116, Arsenic	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

99057

Pollutant:

Arsenic

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed STORET data for West Walker River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Arsenic.

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 arsenic incorporated by reference in the Basin Plan is 0.010 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-NV09-302-WF-001)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2011-03-09 and 2013-10-21

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

QAPP not required for federal data

QAPP Information Reference(s):

This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 78116, Arsenic	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

98996

Pollutant:

Arsenic

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed STORET data for West Walker River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 3 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Arsenic.

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 arsenic incorporated by reference in the Basin Plan is 0.010 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-NV09-302-WF-001)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2011-03-09 and 2012-08-07

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

QAPP not required for federal data

QAPP Information Reference(s):

This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 78116, Arsenic	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

99058

Pollutant:

Arsenic

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed STORET data for West Walker River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 3 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Arsenic.

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 dissolved arsenic criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater for dissolved arsenic is 150 ug/L. The maximum concentration (1-hr average) is 340 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). This data was compared to the more protective, 4-Day average of 150 ug/L.

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-NV09-302-WF-001)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2011-03-09 and 2012-08-07

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

QAPP not required for federal data

QAPP Information Reference(s):

This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 78116, Arsenic	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

98995

Pollutant:

Arsenic

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed STORET data for West Walker River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Arsenic.

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:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site(s) (21NEV1_WQX-NV09-302-WF-001)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2011-03-09 and 2013-10-21

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

QAPP not required for federal data

QAPP Information Reference(s):

This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements.


DECISION ID	101191	Region 6
West Walker River

Pollutant:	Barium
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 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 3 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 3 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 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 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.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

State Board Decision Recommendation:

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 101191, Barium	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

99075

Pollutant:

Barium

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed STORET data for West Walker River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 3 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Barium.

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 barium incorporated by reference in the Water Quality Control Plan, Lahontan Region is 1 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-NV09-302-WF-001)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2011-03-09 and 2012-08-07

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

QAPP not required for federal data

QAPP Information Reference(s):

This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements.


DECISION ID	103352	Region 6
West Walker River

Pollutant:	Benthic Community Effects
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:	Benthic Community Effects are being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under sections 3.9 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.9, additional lines of evidence (LOEs) associating the Benthic Community Effects decision with a water or sediment concentration of pollutants other than benthic-macroinvertebrate bioassessment or habitat assessment LOEs are necessary to place a water body on the 303(d) List for Benthic Community Effects. Two lines of evidence, one evaluating benthic-macroinvertebrate bioassessment data and one evaluating habitat assessment data, are available in the administrative record to assess this indicator. 0 of 11 bioassessment samples exceed the California Stream Condition Index (CSCI) impairment threshold. 0 of 1 habitat assessment samples exceed the Index of Physical Habitat Integrity (IPI) impairment threshold. Both of these lines of evidence achieve the CSCI and IPI thresholds indicating that the waterbody is likely unimpaired and therefore no other pollutant LOEs need be associated with this decision at this time. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing Benthic Community Effects in this waterbody segment 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 11 benthic-macroinvertebrate bioassessment samples had CSCI scores below 0.79. Therefore, this water body is not exceeding the water quality threshold for the protection of the COLD beneficial use. Additionally, 0 of 1 habit assessment samples had IPI scores below 0.83. The available information indicates that the waterbody/pollutant combination should not be placed on the 303(d) List of Impaired Waters at this time. 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 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:

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 103352, Benthic Community Effects	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

132745

Pollutant:

Habitat Assessment (Streams)

LOE Subgroup:

Ancillary Line of Evidence

Matrix:

-N/A

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

HABITAT ASSESSMENT

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

The site had an IPI score of 0.81 and this score indicates that the habitat is likely altered at this site.

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:

All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are lethal to or that produce significant alterations in population or community ecology or receiving water biota. In addition, the health and life history characteristics of aquatic organisms in waters affected by controllable water quality factors shall not differ significantly from those for the same waters in areas unaffected by controllable water quality factors.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended)

Evaluation Guideline:

Physical characteristics of a site vary due to both natural factors and human disturbance. Statistical models based on a large statewide reference data set can help distinguish natural variability from anthropogenic stress. These models work across the diverse stream types found in California. The Index of Physical Habitat Integrity (IPI) is a multimetric Index developed based on these models to characterize physical habitat condition for streams in California. Index scores near 1 indicate physical habitat conditions similar to reference, whereas lower scores indicate degradation. For the purposes of making statewide assessments, three thresholds (analogous to those used for the CSCI) were established based on the 30th; 10th; and 1st percentiles of IPI scores at reference sites. These three thresholds divide the IPI scoring range into 4 categories of physical condition as follows: greater than or equal to 0.94 = likely intact condition; 0.93 to 0.84 = possibly altered condition; 0.83 to 0.71 = likely altered condition; less than or equal to 0.70 = very likely altered condition. Scores of 0.83 or lower indicate that the physical habitat has been altered and low CSCI scores from this site may be due to impacts to the physical habitat.

Guideline Reference:

An Index to Measure the Quality of Physical Habitat in California Wadeable Streams

Spatial Representation:

Collected at sites 631PS0081

Temporal Representation:

Collected on 8/28/2012

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

QAPP for SWAMP Perennial Stream Surveys

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 103352, Benthic Community Effects	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

96384

Pollutant:

Benthic-Macroinvertebrate Bioassessments

LOE Subgroup:

Population/Community Degradation

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Not Specified

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

The site had CSCI scores of 1.082966, 1.192115, 1.150383, 0.92271, 0.980448, 0.981897, 1.000819, 1.018926538, 1.113738801, 0.836308579, and 0.852560335.
Therefore, this site is not exceeding the water quality objective for the aquatic life beneficial use. Additionally, this water body passed several screening criteria and was identified as a reference water body for the purposes of developing the CSCI. Reference sites where human disturbance is absent or minimal are used to set benchmark expectations for healthy streams. A large set of nearly 600 reference sites representing the broad diversity of natural stream types found across California was used to develop the CSCI.

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:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended)

Evaluation Guideline:

The California Stream Condition Index (CSCI) is a biological scoring tool that helps aquatic resource managers translate complex data about benthic macroinvertebrates found living in a stream into an overall measure of stream health. The CSCI score is calculated by comparing the expected condition with actual (observed) results (Rhen, A.C. et al., 2015). CSCI scores range from 0 (highly degraded) to greater than 1 (equivalent to reference). CSCI scoring of biological condition are as follows (per the scientific paper supporting the development of the CSCI scoring tool): greater than or equal to 0.92 = likely intact condition, 0.91 to 0.80 = possibly altered condition, 0.79 to 0.63 = likely altered condition, less than or equal to 0.62 = very likely altered condition. Sites with scores below 0.79 are considered to have exceeded the water quality objective for the aquatic life beneficial use.

Guideline Reference:

Bioassessment in complex environments: designing an index for consistent meaning in different settings

Spatial Representation:

Collected at sites 631SED052, 631PS0081, 631PS0145, 631PS0151, 631WWK002, 631WWK006,
and 631PS0167.

Temporal Representation:

Collected on 8/28/2012, 7/2/2014, 7/13/2015, and 7/22/2015, 9/14/2006, 7/8/2002, 7/17/2002, 8/20/1999, 8/15/2000, 7/17/2002, 8/20/1999, 8/28/2001

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

QAPP for SWAMP Perennial Stream Surveys

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program


DECISION ID	78117	Region 6
West Walker River

Pollutant:	Bifenthrin
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board 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. 0 of the 6 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 6 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 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.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

State Board Decision Recommendation:

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 78117, Bifenthrin	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

43921

Pollutant:

Bifenthrin

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for West Walker River 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:

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

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 West Walker River was collected at 1 monitoring site [ West Walker River at Topaz - 631WWK008]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on a single day 9/23/2008.

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 78117, Bifenthrin	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

100353

Pollutant:

Bifenthrin

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends data for West Walker River to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 5 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Bifenthrin .

Data Reference:

Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends.

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended)

Evaluation Guideline:

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

Guideline Reference:

Whole-sediment toxicity identification evaluation tools for pyrethroid insecticides: I. piperonyl butoxide addition. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 26:2389-2396.

Spatial Representation:

Data were collected from 1 (Station Codes: 631WWKLAR).

Temporal Representation:

Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2010-10-06 to 2014-10-08

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program


DECISION ID	78118	Region 6
West Walker River

Pollutant:	Cadmium
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of the 4 samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 0 of 4 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 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.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

State Board Decision Recommendation:

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 78118, Cadmium	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

100356

Pollutant:

Cadmium

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends.

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended)

Evaluation Guideline:

The evaluation guideline for Cadmium from MacDonald et al., 2000a which states that the probable effect concentration for Cadmium is 4.98 mg/kg. (dw = Dry Weight)

Guideline Reference:

Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31

Spatial Representation:

Data were collected from 1 (Station Codes: 631WWKLAR).

Temporal Representation:

Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2010-10-06 to 2013-10-09

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 78118, Cadmium	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

44035

Pollutant:

Cadmium

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for West Walker River 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:

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 West Walker River was collected at 1 monitoring site [ West Walker River at Topaz]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on a single day 9/23/2008.

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	78808	Region 6
West Walker River

Pollutant:	Chlordane
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant, two for the COLD beneficial use in the sediment matrix and one each for the COLD and COMM beneficial uses in the tissue matrix. Zero of any of the samples exceed the water quality objectives. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used does not satisfy the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 0 of 5 sediment samples exceeded the guideline for the COLD beneficial use; 0 of 1 fish tissue samples exceed the guidelines for the COLD and COMM beneficial uses. 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 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 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.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

State Board Decision Recommendation:

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 78808, Chlordane	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

99511

Pollutant:

Chlordane

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Fish fillet

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP Sportfish Rivers and Streams data for West Walker River to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows 0 of the 1 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Total Chlordanes. Data were collected for 1 fish species (1 composite(s) of Rainbow Trout each composed of 5 fish per composite).

Data Reference:

Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP Sportfish Rivers and Streams.

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended)

Evaluation Guideline:

The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for total chlordane in fish tissue is 3.9 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets. (Klasing, S., and R. Brodberg, 2008)

Guideline Reference:

Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene

Spatial Representation:

Data was collected from 1 station(s) with the station code(s): 631WWK011.

Temporal Representation:

Data for this line of evidence were collected between 2011-08-16 and 2011-08-16

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 78808, Chlordane	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

99510

Pollutant:

Chlordane

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Fish fillet

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP Sportfish Rivers and Streams data for West Walker River to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows 0 of the 1 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Total Chlordanes. Data were collected for 1 fish species (1 composite(s) of Rainbow Trout each composed of 5 fish per composite).

Data Reference:

Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP Sportfish Rivers and Streams.

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended)

Evaluation Guideline:

National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum total Chlordane concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.

Guideline Reference:

National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Spatial Representation:

Data was collected from 1 station(s) with the station code(s): 631WWK011.

Temporal Representation:

Data for this line of evidence were collected between 2011-08-16 and 2011-08-16

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 78808, Chlordane	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

33733

Pollutant:

Chlordane

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

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 631WWK008 (West Walker River at Topaz).

Temporal Representation:

One sample was collected on 9/23/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 78808, Chlordane	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

100360

Pollutant:

Chlordane

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends data for West Walker River to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 4 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Chlordane .

Data Reference:

Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends.

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended)

Evaluation Guideline:

The evaluation guideline for Chlordane from MacDonald et al., 2000a which states that the probable effect concentration for Chlordane is 17.6 ug/kg. (dw = Dry Weight)

Guideline Reference:

Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31

Spatial Representation:

Data were collected from 1 (Station Codes: 631WWKLAR).

Temporal Representation:

Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2010-10-06 to 2013-10-09

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program


DECISION ID	80063	Region 6
West Walker River

Pollutant:	Chlorpyrifos
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines 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 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 5 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 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.

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.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 80063, Chlorpyrifos	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

43951

Pollutant:

Chlorpyrifos

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for West Walker River 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:

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 West Walker River was collected at 1 monitoring site [ West Walker River at Topaz - 631WWK008]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on a single day 9/23/2008.

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 80063, Chlorpyrifos	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

100388

Pollutant:

Chlorpyrifos

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends.

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended)

Evaluation Guideline:

The evaluation guideline for chlorpyrifos is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 1.77 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample (Amweg and Weston, 2007).

Guideline Reference:

Whole-sediment toxicity identification evaluation tools for pyrethroid insecticides: I. piperonyl butoxide addition. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 26:2389-2396.

Spatial Representation:

Data were collected from 1 (Station Codes: 631WWKLAR).

Temporal Representation:

Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2010-10-06 to 2013-10-09

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program


DECISION ID	78329	Region 6
West Walker River

Pollutant:	Chromium
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of 4 samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 0 of 4 samples exceeded the guideline and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board 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.

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.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 78329, Chromium	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

100383

Pollutant:

Chromium

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends.

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended)

Evaluation Guideline:

The evaluation guideline for Chromium from MacDonald et al., 2000a which states that the probable effect concentration for Chromium is 111 mg/kg. (dw = Dry Weight)

Guideline Reference:

Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31

Spatial Representation:

Data were collected from 1 (Station Codes: 631WWKLAR).

Temporal Representation:

Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2010-10-06 to 2013-10-09

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 78329, Chromium	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

44062

Pollutant:

Chromium

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for West Walker River 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:

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 West Walker River was collected at 1 monitoring site [ West Walker River at Topaz]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on a single day 9/23/2008.

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	71888	Region 6
West Walker River

Pollutant:	Copper
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Four lines of evidence, two evaluating sediment data for the COLD beneficial use and one each evaluating water data for the COLD and MUN beneficial uses, are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of 4 sediment samples exceed the water quality objective; 0 of 1 water samples exceed the objectives for both the COLD and MUN beneficial use assessments. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 0 of 4 sediment samples, 0 of 1 water samples evaluated for the COLD beneficial use and 0 of 1 water samples evaluated for the MUN beneficial use exceeded the guidelines 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 per beneficial use/pollutant fraction 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 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.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

State Board Decision Recommendation:

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 71888, Copper	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

99041

Pollutant:

Copper

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed STORET data for West Walker River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Copper.

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 continuous 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:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site(s) (21NEV1_WQX-NV09-302-WF-001)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2012-08-07 and 2012-08-07

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

QAPP not required for federal data

QAPP Information Reference(s):

This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 71888, Copper	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

130111

Pollutant:

Copper

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed STORET data for West Walker River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Copper.

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 Maximum Contaminant Level for total Copper incorporated by reference in the Water Quality Control Plan, Lahontan Region is 1.0 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-NV09-302-WF-001)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2012-08-07 and 2012-08-07

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

QAPP not required for federal data

QAPP Information Reference(s):

This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 71888, Copper	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

44101

Pollutant:

Copper

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for West Walker River 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:

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 West Walker River was collected at 1 monitoring site [ West Walker River at Topaz]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on a single day 9/23/2008.

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 71888, Copper	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

100322

Pollutant:

Copper

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends.

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended)

Evaluation Guideline:

The evaluation guideline for Copper from MacDonald et al., 2000a which states that the probable effect concentration for Copper is 149 mg/kg. (dw = Dry Weight)

Guideline Reference:

Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31

Spatial Representation:

Data were collected from 1 (Station Codes: 631WWKLAR).

Temporal Representation:

Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2010-10-06 to 2013-10-09

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program


DECISION ID	78483	Region 6
West Walker River

Pollutant:	Cyfluthrin
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 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 against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 0 of 5 samples exceeded the guideline and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board 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.

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.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 78483, Cyfluthrin	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

43896

Pollutant:

Cyfluthrin

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for West Walker River 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:

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 West Walker River was collected at 1 monitoring site [ West Walker River at Topaz - 631WWK008]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on a single day 9/23/2008.

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 78483, Cyfluthrin	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

100324

Pollutant:

Cyfluthrin

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends.

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended)

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5

Spatial Representation:

Data were collected from 1 (Station Codes: 631WWKLAR).

Temporal Representation:

Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2010-10-06 to 2013-10-09

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program


DECISION ID	76377	Region 6
West Walker River

Pollutant:	Cyhalothrin, Lambda
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of 6 samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 0 of 6 samples exceeded the guidelines 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 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.

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.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 76377, Cyhalothrin, Lambda	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

100328

Pollutant:

Cyhalothrin, Lambda

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends.

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended)

Evaluation Guideline:

The evaluation guideline for lambda-cyhalothrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 0.44 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 0.44 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for lambda-cyhalothrin from Amweg et al. (2005).

Guideline Reference:

Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5

Spatial Representation:

Data were collected from 1 (Station Codes: 631WWKLAR).

Temporal Representation:

Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2010-10-06 to 2014-10-08

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 76377, Cyhalothrin, Lambda	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

43926

Pollutant:

Cyhalothrin, Lambda

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for West Walker River 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:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended)

Evaluation Guideline:

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 West Walker River was collected at 1 monitoring site [ West Walker River at Topaz - 631WWK008]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on a single day 9/23/2008.

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	78484	Region 6
West Walker River

Pollutant:	Cypermethrin
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 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 against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 0 of 5 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 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.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

State Board Decision Recommendation:

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 78484, Cypermethrin	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

100331

Pollutant:

Cypermethrin

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends.

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended)

Evaluation Guideline:

The evaluation guideline for cypermethrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 0.3 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 0.3 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for cypermethrin from Maund et al. (2002).

Guideline Reference:

Partitioning, bioavailability, and toxicity of the pyrethroid insecticide cypermethrin in sediments. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 21:9-15

Spatial Representation:

Data were collected from 1 (Station Codes: 631WWKLAR).

Temporal Representation:

Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2010-10-06 to 2013-10-09

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 78484, Cypermethrin	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

43886

Pollutant:

Cypermethrin

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for West Walker River 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:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended)

Evaluation Guideline:

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 West Walker River was collected at 1 monitoring site [ West Walker River at Topaz - 631WWK008]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on a single day 9/23/2008.

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	101192	Region 6
West Walker River

Pollutant:	DDD (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane)
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 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 4 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 4 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 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.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

State Board Decision Recommendation:

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 101192, DDD (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane)	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

100334

Pollutant:

DDD (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends.

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended)

Evaluation Guideline:

The evaluation guideline for Sum DDD from MacDonald et al., 2000a which states that the probable effect concentration for Sum DDD is 28 ug/kg. (dw = Dry Weight)

Guideline Reference:

Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31

Spatial Representation:

Data were collected from 1 (Station Codes: 631WWKLAR).

Temporal Representation:

Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2010-10-06 to 2013-10-09

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program


DECISION ID	101193	Region 6
West Walker River

Pollutant:	DDE (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene)
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 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 4 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 4 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 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.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

State Board Decision Recommendation:

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 101193, DDE (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene)	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

100339

Pollutant:

DDE (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends.

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended)

Evaluation Guideline:

The evaluation guideline for Sum DDE from MacDonald et al., 2000a which states that the probable effect concentration for Sum DDE is 31.3 ug/kg. (dw = Dry Weight)

Guideline Reference:

Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31

Spatial Representation:

Data were collected from 1 (Station Codes: 631WWKLAR).

Temporal Representation:

Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2010-10-06 to 2013-10-09

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program


DECISION ID	101194	Region 6
West Walker River

Pollutant:	DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)
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 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, one which evaluated Total DDT fish tissue data for the COLD beneficial use, one which evaluates Total DDT fish tissue data for the COMM beneficial uses, one which evaluates Total DDT sediment data for the COLD beneficial use, and one which evaluates DDT sediment data for the COLD beneficial use, are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of 4 DDT sediment samples exceed the sediment quality guideline for the COLD beneficial use; 0 of 4 Total DDT sediment samples exceed the guideline for the COLD beneficial use; 0 of 1 fish tissue samples exceed the guideline for the COLD beneficial use; 0 of 1 fish tissue samples exceed the guideline for the COMM beneficial use. 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 4 DDT sediment samples exceeded the guideline for the COLD beneficial use; 0 of 4 Total DDT sediment samples exceed the guideline for the COLD beneficial use; 0 of 1 fish tissue samples exceed the guideline for the COLD beneficial use; 0 of 1 fish tissue samples exceed the guideline for the COMM beneficial use. 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 analyte fraction/beneficial use combination 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 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.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

State Board Decision Recommendation:

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 101194, DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

100341

Pollutant:

DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends.

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended)

Evaluation Guideline:

The evaluation guideline for Sum DDT from MacDonald et al., 2000a which states that the probable effect concentration for Sum DDT is 62.9 ug/kg. (dw = Dry Weight)

Guideline Reference:

Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31

Spatial Representation:

Data were collected from 1 (Station Codes: 631WWKLAR).

Temporal Representation:

Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2010-10-06 to 2013-10-09

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 101194, DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

99578

Pollutant:

Total DDT (sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Fish fillet

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP Sportfish Rivers and Streams data for West Walker River to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows 0 of the 1 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Total DDT (sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD). Data were collected for 1 fish species (1 composite(s) of Rainbow Trout each composed of 5 fish per composite).

Data Reference:

Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP Sportfish Rivers and Streams.

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended)

Evaluation Guideline:

National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum total DDT concentration of 1000 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.

Guideline Reference:

National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Spatial Representation:

Data was collected from 1 station(s) with the station code(s): 631WWK011.

Temporal Representation:

Data for this line of evidence were collected between 2011-08-16 and 2011-08-16

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 101194, DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

99340

Pollutant:

Total DDT (sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Fish fillet

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP Sportfish Rivers and Streams data for West Walker River to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows 0 of the 1 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Total DDT (sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD). Data were collected for 1 fish species (1 composite(s) of Rainbow Trout each composed of 5 fish per composite).

Data Reference:

Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP Sportfish Rivers and Streams.

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended)

Evaluation Guideline:

The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for total DDT in fish tissue is 15 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets. (Klasing, S., and R. Brodberg, 2008)

Guideline Reference:

Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene

Spatial Representation:

Data was collected from 1 station(s) with the station code(s): 631WWK011.

Temporal Representation:

Data for this line of evidence were collected between 2011-08-16 and 2011-08-16

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 101194, DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

100445

Pollutant:

Total DDT (sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends.

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended)

Evaluation Guideline:

The evaluation guideline for Total DDTs from MacDonald et al., 2000a which states that the probable effect concentration for Total DDTs is 572 ug/kg. (dw = Dry Weight)

Guideline Reference:

Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31

Spatial Representation:

Data were collected from 1 (Station Codes: 631WWKLAR).

Temporal Representation:

Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2010-10-06 to 2013-10-09

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program


DECISION ID	78530	Region 6
West Walker River

Pollutant:	Deltamethrin
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 0 of 4 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 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.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

State Board Decision Recommendation:

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 78530, Deltamethrin	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

43916

Pollutant:

Deltamethrin

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for West Walker River 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:

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 West Walker River was collected at 1 monitoring site [ West Walker River at Topaz - 631WWK008]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on a single day 9/23/2008.

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 78530, Deltamethrin	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

100429

Pollutant:

Deltamethrin

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends.

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended)

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5

Spatial Representation:

Data were collected from 1 (Station Codes: 631WWKLAR).

Temporal Representation:

Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2010-10-06 to 2012-10-09

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program


DECISION ID	78531	Region 6
West Walker River

Pollutant:	Diazinon
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 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 against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 0 of 5 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 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.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

State Board Decision Recommendation:

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 78531, Diazinon	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

100369

Pollutant:

Diazinon

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends.

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended)

Evaluation Guideline:

The evaluation guideline for diazinon is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 11 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 11 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for diazinon from Ding et al. (2011).

Guideline Reference:

Toxicity of Sediment-Associated Pesticides to Chironomus dilutus and Hyalella azteca. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 61:83¿92.

Spatial Representation:

Data were collected from 1 (Station Codes: 631WWKLAR).

Temporal Representation:

Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2010-10-06 to 2013-10-09

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 78531, Diazinon	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

43946

Pollutant:

Diazinon

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for West Walker River 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:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended)

Evaluation Guideline:

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 West Walker River was collected at 1 monitoring site [ West Walker River at Topaz - 631WWK008]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on a single day 9/23/2008.

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	78532	Region 6
West Walker River

Pollutant:	Dieldrin
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Two lines of evidence are available for the COLD beneficial use in the sediment matrix and one line of evidence each is available for the COLD and COMM beneficial uses in the tissue matrix. 0 of any available samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 0 of 6 total samples exceeded the guidelines 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 for any one beneficial use 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 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.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

State Board Decision Recommendation:

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 78532, Dieldrin	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

43805

Pollutant:

Dieldrin

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for West Walker River 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 West Walker River was collected at 1 monitoring site [ West Walker River at Topaz]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on a single day 9/23/2008.

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 78532, Dieldrin	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

100259

Pollutant:

Dieldrin

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends.

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended)

Evaluation Guideline:

The evaluation guideline for Dieldrin from MacDonald et al., 2000a which states that the probable effect concentration for Dieldrin is 61.8 ug/kg dw. (dw = Dry Weight)

Guideline Reference:

Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31

Spatial Representation:

Data were collected from 1 (Station Codes: 631WWKLAR).

Temporal Representation:

Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2010-10-06 to 2013-10-09

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 78532, Dieldrin	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

99508

Pollutant:

Dieldrin

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Fish fillet

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP Sportfish Rivers and Streams data for West Walker River to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows 0 of the 1 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Dieldrin. Data were collected for 1 fish species (1 composite(s) of Rainbow Trout each composed of 5 fish per composite).

Data Reference:

Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP Sportfish Rivers and Streams.

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended)

Evaluation Guideline:

National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Dieldrin concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.

Guideline Reference:

National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Spatial Representation:

Data was collected from 1 station(s) with the station code(s): 631WWK011.

Temporal Representation:

Data for this line of evidence were collected between 2011-08-16 and 2011-08-16

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 78532, Dieldrin	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

99507

Pollutant:

Dieldrin

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Fish fillet

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Waterboard staff assessed SWAMP Sportfish Rivers and Streams data for West Walker River to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: Zero of Zero samples exceeded the water quality standard for Dieldrin. Although data was collected for 1 fish species (1 composite(s) of Rainbow Trout each composed of 5 fish per composite), all 1 sample(s) had to be thrown out due to quantitation issues.

Data Reference:

Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP Sportfish Rivers and Streams.

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended)

Evaluation Guideline:

The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for dieldrin in fish tissue is 0.32 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets. (Klasing, S., and R. Brodberg, 2008)

Guideline Reference:

Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene

Spatial Representation:

Data was collected from 1 station(s) with the station code(s): 631WWK011.

Temporal Representation:

Data for this line of evidence were collected between 2011-08-16 and 2011-08-16

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program


DECISION ID	101195	Region 6
West Walker River

Pollutant:	Endosulfan
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 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. All lines of evidence are based on the same sampling data, which has been assessed against the COLD and COMM beneficial uses. 0 of the samples in either beneficial use assessment 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 1 samples exceeded the water quality guidelines for either the COLD or COMM beneficial use assessment 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 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.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

State Board Decision Recommendation:

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 101195, Endosulfan	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

99605

Pollutant:

Endosulfan

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Fish fillet

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP Sportfish Rivers and Streams data for West Walker River to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows 0 of the 1 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Endosulfan. Data were collected for 1 fish species (1 composite(s) of Rainbow Trout each composed of 5 fish per composite).

Data Reference:

Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP Sportfish Rivers and Streams.

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended)

Evaluation Guideline:

The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for endosulfan (l and ll) in fish tissue is 13,000 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets. (Klasing, S., and R. Brodberg, 2008; USEPA, 2000)

Guideline Reference:

Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene

Guideline Reference:

Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use In Fish Advisories Volume 1: Fish Sampling and Analysis

Spatial Representation:

Data was collected from 1 station(s) with the station code(s): 631WWK011.

Temporal Representation:

Data for this line of evidence were collected between 2011-08-16 and 2011-08-16

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 101195, Endosulfan	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

99114

Pollutant:

Endosulfan

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Fish fillet

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP Sportfish Rivers and Streams data for West Walker River to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows 0 of the 1 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Endosulfan. Data were collected for 1 fish species (1 composite(s) of Rainbow Trout each composed of 5 fish per composite).

Data Reference:

Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP Sportfish Rivers and Streams.

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended)

Evaluation Guideline:

National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Endosulfan, Total concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.

Guideline Reference:

National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Spatial Representation:

Data was collected from 1 station(s) with the station code(s): 631WWK011.

Temporal Representation:

Data for this line of evidence were collected between 2011-08-16 and 2011-08-16

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program


DECISION ID	77986	Region 6
West Walker River

Pollutant:	Endrin
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Four lines of evidence, two which assess sediment data for the COLD beneficial use and one assessing tissue data for each of the COLD and COMM beneficial uses, are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of any available samples exceed the applicable water quality objectives. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 0 of any available samples exceeded the applicable water quality guidelines 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 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 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.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

State Board Decision Recommendation:

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 77986, Endrin	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

99211

Pollutant:

Endrin

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Fish fillet

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP Sportfish Rivers and Streams data for West Walker River to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows 0 of the 1 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Endrin. Data were collected for 1 fish species (1 composite(s) of Rainbow Trout each composed of 5 fish per composite).

Data Reference:

Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP Sportfish Rivers and Streams.

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended)

Evaluation Guideline:

National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Endrin concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.

Guideline Reference:

National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Spatial Representation:

Data was collected from 1 station(s) with the station code(s): 631WWK011.

Temporal Representation:

Data for this line of evidence were collected between 2011-08-16 and 2011-08-16

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 77986, Endrin	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

99212

Pollutant:

Endrin

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Fish fillet

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP Sportfish Rivers and Streams data for West Walker River to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows 0 of the 1 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Endrin. Data were collected for 1 fish species (1 composite(s) of Rainbow Trout each composed of 5 fish per composite).

Data Reference:

Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP Sportfish Rivers and Streams.

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended)

Evaluation Guideline:

The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for endrin in fish tissue is 660 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets. (Klasing, S., and R. Brodberg, 2008; USEPA, 2000)

Guideline Reference:

Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene

Guideline Reference:

Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use In Fish Advisories Volume 1: Fish Sampling and Analysis

Spatial Representation:

Data was collected from 1 station(s) with the station code(s): 631WWK011.

Temporal Representation:

Data for this line of evidence were collected between 2011-08-16 and 2011-08-16

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 77986, Endrin	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

100262

Pollutant:

Endrin

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends.

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended)

Evaluation Guideline:

The evaluation guideline for Endrin from MacDonald et al., 2000a which states that the probable effect concentration for Endrin is 207 ug/kg. (dw = Dry Weight)

Guideline Reference:

Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31

Spatial Representation:

Data were collected from 1 (Station Codes: 631WWKLAR).

Temporal Representation:

Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2010-10-06 to 2013-10-09

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 77986, Endrin	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

43815

Pollutant:

Endrin

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for West Walker River 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:

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 West Walker River was collected at 1 monitoring site [ West Walker River at Topaz]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on a single day 9/23/2008.

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	77987	Region 6
West Walker River

Pollutant:	Esfenvalerate/Fenvalerate
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 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 against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 0 of 5 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 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.

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.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 77987, Esfenvalerate/Fenvalerate	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

44274

Pollutant:

Esfenvalerate/Fenvalerate

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for West Walker River 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:

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 West Walker River was collected at 1 monitoring site [ West Walker River at Topaz - 631WWK008]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on a single day 9/23/2008.

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 77987, Esfenvalerate/Fenvalerate	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

100264

Pollutant:

Esfenvalerate/Fenvalerate

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends.

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended)

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5

Spatial Representation:

Data were collected from 1 (Station Codes: 631WWKLAR).

Temporal Representation:

Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2010-10-06 to 2013-10-09

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program


DECISION ID	77988	Region 6
West Walker River

Pollutant:	Fenpropathrin
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of 6 samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 0 of 6 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 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.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

State Board Decision Recommendation:

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 77988, Fenpropathrin	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

100414

Pollutant:

Fenpropathrin

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends.

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended)

Evaluation Guideline:

The evaluation guideline for fenpropathrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 1 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 1 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for fenpropathrin from Ding et al. ( 2011).

Guideline Reference:

Toxicity of Sediment-Associated Pesticides to Chironomus dilutus and Hyalella azteca. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 61:83¿92.

Spatial Representation:

Data were collected from 1 (Station Codes: 631WWKLAR).

Temporal Representation:

Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2010-10-06 to 2014-10-08

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 77988, Fenpropathrin	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

44314

Pollutant:

Fenpropathrin

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for West Walker River 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:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended)

Evaluation Guideline:

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 West Walker River was collected at 1 monitoring site [ West Walker River at Topaz - 631WWK008]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on a single day 9/23/2008.

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	79449	Region 6
West Walker River

Pollutant:	Fluoride
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant against the MUN beneficial use. 0 of 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 against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 0 of 27 samples exceeded the guideline and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board 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:

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 79449, Fluoride	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

33114

Pollutant:

Fluoride

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Zero of 2 samples exceeded the water quality objective.

Data Reference:

RWB6 Trend Monitoring CY2006 CY2007

SWAMP Data:

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 Fluoride is 2.0 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 Station 631WWK001 - West Walker River, at Coleville.

Temporal Representation:

Samples were collected between 8/8/2007 and 11/8/2007.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

2002 QAMP (Quality Assurance Management Plan) for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 79449, Fluoride	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

97108

Pollutant:

Fluoride

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB6 Monitoring data for West Walker River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 21 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) (631WWK001)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-10-22 and 2015-10-15

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 79449, Fluoride	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

99042

Pollutant:

Fluoride

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed STORET data for West Walker River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Fluoride.

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 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) (21NEV1_WQX-NV09-302-WF-001)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2011-03-09 and 2012-08-07

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

QAPP not required for federal data

QAPP Information Reference(s):

This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements.


DECISION ID	101196	Region 6
West Walker River

Pollutant:	Heptachlor
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 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 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 satisfies 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 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.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

State Board Decision Recommendation:

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 101196, Heptachlor	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

99257

Pollutant:

Heptachlor

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Fish fillet

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP Sportfish Rivers and Streams data for West Walker River to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows 0 of the 1 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Heptachlor. Data were collected for 1 fish species (1 composite(s) of Rainbow Trout each composed of 5 fish per composite).

Data Reference:

Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP Sportfish Rivers and Streams.

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended)

Evaluation Guideline:

National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Heptachlor concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.

Guideline Reference:

National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Spatial Representation:

Data was collected from 1 station(s) with the station code(s): 631WWK011.

Temporal Representation:

Data for this line of evidence were collected between 2011-08-16 and 2011-08-16

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program


DECISION ID	101197	Region 6
West Walker River

Pollutant:	Heptachlor epoxide
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 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, although data assessed for the COMM beneficial use did not meet the quantitation checks required for the 2018 Integrated Report and the computed sample size for this line of evidence is 0. 0 of 1 samples assessed for the COLD beneficial use 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 satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 0 of 1 samples assessed for the COLD beneficial use 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 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 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.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

State Board Decision Recommendation:

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 101197, Heptachlor epoxide	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

99195

Pollutant:

Heptachlor epoxide

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Fish fillet

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP Sportfish Rivers and Streams data for West Walker River to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows 0 of the 1 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Heptachlor Epoxide. Data were collected for 1 fish species (1 composite(s) of Rainbow Trout each composed of 5 fish per composite).

Data Reference:

Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP Sportfish Rivers and Streams.

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended)

Evaluation Guideline:

National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Heptachlor Epoxide concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.

Guideline Reference:

National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Spatial Representation:

Data was collected from 1 station(s) with the station code(s): 631WWK011.

Temporal Representation:

Data for this line of evidence were collected between 2011-08-16 and 2011-08-16

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 101197, Heptachlor epoxide	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

99193

Pollutant:

Heptachlor epoxide

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Fish fillet

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Waterboard staff assessed SWAMP Sportfish Rivers and Streams data for West Walker River to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: Zero of Zero samples exceeded the water quality standard for Heptachlor Epoxide. Although data was collected for 1 fish species (1 composite(s) of Rainbow Trout each composed of 5 fish per composite), all 1 sample(s) had to be thrown out due to quantitation issues.

Data Reference:

Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP Sportfish Rivers and Streams.

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended)

Evaluation Guideline:

The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for heptachlor epoxide in fish tissue is 0.93 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets. (Klasing, S., and R. Brodberg, 2008; OEHHA, 1999)

Guideline Reference:

Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene

Guideline Reference:

Public Health Goal for Heptachlor and Heptachlor Epoxide in Drinking Water

Spatial Representation:

Data was collected from 1 station(s) with the station code(s): 631WWK011.

Temporal Representation:

Data for this line of evidence were collected between 2011-08-16 and 2011-08-16

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program


DECISION ID	101198	Region 6
West Walker River

Pollutant:	Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB
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 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 1 samples exceed the water quality guideline for the COMM beneficial use. 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 satisfies 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 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.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

State Board Decision Recommendation:

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 101198, Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

99572

Pollutant:

Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Fish fillet

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP Sportfish Rivers and Streams data for West Walker River to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows 0 of the 1 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Hexachlorobenzene. Data were collected for 1 fish species (1 composite(s) of Rainbow Trout each composed of 5 fish per composite).

Data Reference:

Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP Sportfish Rivers and Streams.

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended)

Evaluation Guideline:

The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for hexachlorobenzene in fish tissue is 2.8 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets. (Klasing, S., and R. Brodberg, 2008; OEHHA, 2005)

Guideline Reference:

Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene

Guideline Reference:

Air Toxics Hotspots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines. Part ll Technical Support Document for Describing Available Cancer Potency Values.

Spatial Representation:

Data was collected from 1 station(s) with the station code(s): 631WWK011.

Temporal Representation:

Data for this line of evidence were collected between 2011-08-16 and 2011-08-16

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program


DECISION ID	69942	Region 6
West Walker River

Pollutant:	Indicator Bacteria
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board 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. Twelve lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Four lines of evidence exist for E. coli data assessed for the REC-1 beneficial use, five line of evidence exist for fecal coliform data assessed for the MUN beneficial use, and three lines of evidence exist for fecal coliform data assessed for the REC-1 beneficial use from a previous assessment cycle. 0 of 45 E. coli geometric mean samples and 0 of 85 E. coli Statistical Threshold Value (STV) samples exceed the water quality objectives for the REC-1 beneficial use. 20 of 154 fecal coliform log-mean samples and 6 of 102 fecal coliform STV samples exceed for the water quality objective for the MUN beneficial use. 1 of 12 fecal coliform log-mean sample and 0 of 5 fecal coliform STV samples exceed the objectives for the REC-1 beneficial use in a previous assessment cycle. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 0 of 45 E. coli geometric mean samples and 0 of 85 E. coli Statistical Threshold Value (STV) samples exceed the water quality objectives for the REC-1 beneficial use. 20 of 154 fecal coliform log-mean samples and 6 of 102 fecal coliform STV samples exceed for the water quality objective for the MUN beneficial use. These sample sizes do 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 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:

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 69942, Indicator Bacteria	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

99868

Pollutant:

Escherichia coli (E. coli)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Water Contact Recreation

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PATHOGEN MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB6 Monitoring data for West Walker River to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 78 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 4 monitoring site(s), station(s): 631WWK001, 631WWK007, 631WWK008, 631WWK010

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the days of 2011-06-15 and 2015-10-15 .

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 69942, Indicator Bacteria	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

100024

Pollutant:

Escherichia coli (E. coli)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Water Contact Recreation

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PATHOGEN MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed RWB6_BACT_Monitoring data for West Walker River to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 7 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:

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): 631WWK008

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the days of 2015-08-10 and 2016-09-28 .

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 69942, Indicator Bacteria	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

5697

Pollutant:

Fecal Coliform

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Water Contact Recreation

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Water column surveys (e.g. fecal coliform)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

The U.S. Geological Survey collected quarterly samples for fecal coliform bacteria between 2003 and 2005 under the Region 6 SWAMP program. Bacteria counts in four of seven samples were estimated values. Two samples were below the detection level, and one sample was reported as greater than 240 colonies per 100 mL.

Data Reference:

2007. SWAMP Data for the West Walker River and East Walker River Hydrologic Units

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

The Lahontan Basin Plan's objective for coliform bacteria states: "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. The log mean shall ideally be based on a minimum of not less than five samples collected as evenly spaced as practicable during any 30-day period. However, a log mean concentration exceeding 20/100 ml for any 30-day period shall indicate violation of this objective even if fewer than five samples were collected."

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended)

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

One station, West Walker River near Coleville, was sampled.

Temporal Representation:

Seven quarterly samples were collected between 2003 and 2005.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Data meet the quality assurance requirements of the SWAMP QAPP.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 69942, Indicator Bacteria	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

34861

Pollutant:

Fecal Coliform

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Water Contact Recreation

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Not Specified

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Zero of the five samples exceeded the fecal coliform objective.

Data Reference:

RWB6 Trend Monitoring CY2006 CY2007

SWAMP Data:

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 from station 631WWK001 West Walker River, at Coleville.

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected once a month from August to December 2007.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

2002 QAMP (Quality Assurance Management Plan) for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 69942, Indicator Bacteria	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

32255

Pollutant:

Fecal Coliform

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Water Contact Recreation

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Not Specified

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Zero of the five samples exceeded the Fecal Coliform objective.

Data Reference:

RWB6 Trend Monitoring CY2006 CY2007

SWAMP Data:

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 from station 631WWK001 West Walker River, at Coleville.

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected once a month from August to December 2007.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

2002 QAMP (Quality Assurance Management Plan) for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 69942, Indicator Bacteria	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

5696

Pollutant:

Fecal Coliform

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Water column surveys (e.g. fecal coliform)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

2007. SWAMP Data for the West Walker River and East Walker River Hydrologic Units

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended)

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

One station, West Walker River near Coleville, was sampled.

Temporal Representation:

Seven quarterly samples were collected between 2003 and 2005.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Data meet the quality assurance requirements of the SWAMP QAPP.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 69942, Indicator Bacteria	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

129335

Pollutant:

Fecal Coliform

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PATHOGEN MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed RWB6_BACT_Monitoring data for West Walker River to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 9 of the 16 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): 631WWK008

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the days of 2015-08-10 and 2016-09-28 .

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 69942, Indicator Bacteria	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

99721

Pollutant:

Escherichia coli (E. coli)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Water Contact Recreation

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PATHOGEN MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed RWB6_BACT_Monitoring data for West Walker River to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 9 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): 631WWK008

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the days of 2015-08-10 and 2016-09-28 .

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 69942, Indicator Bacteria	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

99826

Pollutant:

Escherichia coli (E. coli)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Water Contact Recreation

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PATHOGEN MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB6 Monitoring data for West Walker River to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 36 samples exceeded the geomean water quality standard for E. coli. This is a six week rolling geomean that is calculated weekly.

Data Reference:

Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for the SWAMP RWB6 Monitoring (tissue and water).

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

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 4 monitoring site(s), station(s): 631WWK001, 631WWK007, 631WWK008, 631WWK010

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the days of 2011-06-15 and 2015-10-15 .

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 69942, Indicator Bacteria	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

129356

Pollutant:

Fecal Coliform

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PATHOGEN MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed RWB6_BACT_Monitoring data for West Walker River to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 3 of the 7 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:

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): 631WWK008

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the days of 2015-08-10 and 2016-09-28 .

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 69942, Indicator Bacteria	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

129408

Pollutant:

Fecal Coliform

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PATHOGEN MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB6 Monitoring data for West Walker River to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 3 of the 95 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:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended)

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 4 monitoring site(s), station(s): 631WWK001, 631WWK007, 631WWK008, 631WWK010

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the days of 2010-09-13 and 2015-10-15 .

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 69942, Indicator Bacteria	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

129390

Pollutant:

Fecal Coliform

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

131

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PATHOGEN MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB6 Monitoring data for West Walker River to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 10 of the 131 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:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended)

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 4 monitoring site(s), station(s): 631WWK001, 631WWK007, 631WWK008, 631WWK010

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the days of 2010-09-13 and 2015-10-15 .

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program


DECISION ID	78856	Region 6
West Walker River

Pollutant:	Iron
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant, 3 each for the COLD and MUN beneficial uses in the water matrix. Zero of all available samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 0 of 10 samples exceeded the objective/guideline for both the COLD and MUN beneficial uses 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 per beneficial use assessment 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 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.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

State Board Decision Recommendation:

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 78856, Iron	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

44304

Pollutant:

Iron

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for West Walker River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Iron.

Data Reference:

RWB6 Trend Monitoring CY2006 CY2007

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

The Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region's Objective for Municipal and Domestic Supply uses of inland surface waters states that waters designated as MUN shall not contain concentrations of chemical constituents in excess of the maximum contaminant level (MCL) or secondary maximum contaminant level (SMCL). This is based upon drinking water standards specified in the following provisions of Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations which are incorporated by reference into the Water Quality Control Plan: Table 64431-A of Section 64431 (Inorganic Chemicals), Table 64431-B of Section 64431 (Fluoride), Table 64444-A of Section 64444 (Organic Chemicals), Table 64449-A of Section 64449 (Secondary Maximum Contaminant Levels-Ranges). The maximum contaminant level listed in Table 64449-A for Iron is 0.3 mg/L.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended)

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for West Walker River was collected at 1 monitoring site [ West Walker River, at Coleville]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 8/8/2007-11/8/2007.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

2002 QAMP (Quality Assurance Management Plan) for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 78856, Iron	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

99007

Pollutant:

Iron

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed STORET data for West Walker River 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:

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-NV09-302-WF-001)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2011-03-09 and 2012-08-07

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

QAPP not required for federal data

QAPP Information Reference(s):

This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 78856, Iron	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

44288

Pollutant:

Iron

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for West Walker River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Iron.

Data Reference:

RWB6 Trend Monitoring CY2006 CY2007

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

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 (National Recommended Water Quality Criteria 2009).

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for West Walker River was collected at 1 monitoring site [ West Walker River, at Coleville]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 8/8/2007-11/8/2007.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

2002 QAMP (Quality Assurance Management Plan) for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 78856, Iron	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

98239

Pollutant:

Iron

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB6 Monitoring data for West Walker River 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 Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for the SWAMP RWB6 Monitoring (tissue and water).

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

The Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region?s Objective for Municipal and Domestic Supply uses of inland surface waters states that waters designated as MUN shall not contain concentrations of chemical constituents in excess of the maximum contaminant level (MCL) or secondary maximum contaminant level (SMCL). This is based upon drinking water standards specified in the following provisions of Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations which are incorporated by reference into the Water Quality Control Plan: Table 64431-A of Section 64431 (Inorganic Chemicals), Table 64431-B of Section 64431 (Fluoride), Table 64444-A of Section 64444 (Organic Chemicals), Table 64449-A of Section 64449 (Secondary Maximum Contaminant Levels-Ranges). The maximum contaminant level listed in Table 64449-A for Iron is 0.3 mg/L.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended)

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site(s) (631WWK001)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-10-22 and 2011-07-07

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 78856, Iron	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

98189

Pollutant:

Iron

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

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:

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) (631WWK001)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-10-22 and 2011-07-07

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 78856, Iron	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

99045

Pollutant:

Iron

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed STORET data for West Walker River 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:

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-NV09-302-WF-001)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2011-03-09 and 2012-08-07

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

QAPP not required for federal data

QAPP Information Reference(s):

This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements.


DECISION ID	77989	Region 6
West Walker River

Pollutant:	Lead
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of 4 samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 0 of 4 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 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.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

State Board Decision Recommendation:

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 77989, Lead	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

100275

Pollutant:

Lead

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends.

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended)

Evaluation Guideline:

The evaluation guideline for Lead from MacDonald et al., 2000a which states that the probable effect concentration for Lead is 128 mg/kg. (dw = Dry Weight)

Guideline Reference:

Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31

Spatial Representation:

Data were collected from 1 (Station Codes: 631WWKLAR).

Temporal Representation:

Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2010-10-06 to 2013-10-09

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 77989, Lead	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

43835

Pollutant:

Lead

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for West Walker River 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:

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 West Walker River was collected at 1 monitoring site [ West Walker River at Topaz]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on a single day 9/23/2008.

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	80198	Region 6
West Walker River

Pollutant:	Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH)
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant, one each for the COLD and COMM beneficial uses which assess tissue data and two for the COLD beneficial use which assess sediment data. Zero of all available samples exceed the applicable water quality objectives. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 0 of 5 samples across all beneficial uses assessed for this decision exceeded the applicable water quality guidelines 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 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 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.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

State Board Decision Recommendation:

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 80198, Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH)	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

100348

Pollutant:

Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends data for West Walker River to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 1 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for HCH, gamma-. Although a total of 4 samples were collected, 3 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5.

Data Reference:

Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends.

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended)

Evaluation Guideline:

The evaluation guideline for Lindane from MacDonald et al., 2000a which states that the probable effect concentration for Lindane is 4.99 ug/kg. (dw = Dry Weight)

Guideline Reference:

Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31

Spatial Representation:

Data were collected from 1 (Station Codes: 631WWKLAR).

Temporal Representation:

Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2013-10-09 to 2013-10-09

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 80198, Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH)	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

99165

Pollutant:

Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Fish fillet

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP Sportfish Rivers and Streams data for West Walker River to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows 0 of the 1 samples exceeded the water quality standard for HCH, gamma-. Data were collected for 1 fish species (1 composite(s) of Rainbow Trout each composed of 5 fish per composite).

Data Reference:

Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP Sportfish Rivers and Streams.

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended)

Evaluation Guideline:

The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for lindane in fish tissue is 4.6 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets. (Klasing, S., and R. Brodberg, 2008; OEHHA, 2005)

Guideline Reference:

Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene

Guideline Reference:

Air Toxics Hotspots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines. Part ll Technical Support Document for Describing Available Cancer Potency Values.

Spatial Representation:

Data was collected from 1 station(s) with the station code(s): 631WWK011.

Temporal Representation:

Data for this line of evidence were collected between 2011-08-16 and 2011-08-16

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 80198, Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH)	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

43825

Pollutant:

Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for West Walker River 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:

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 West Walker River was collected at 1 monitoring site [ West Walker River at Topaz]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on a single day 9/23/2008.

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 80198, Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH)	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

99237

Pollutant:

Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Fish fillet

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP Sportfish Rivers and Streams data for West Walker River to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows 0 of the 1 samples exceeded the water quality standard for HCH, gamma-. Data were collected for 1 fish species (1 composite(s) of Rainbow Trout each composed of 5 fish per composite).

Data Reference:

Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP Sportfish Rivers and Streams.

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended)

Evaluation Guideline:

National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Lindane concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.

Guideline Reference:

National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Spatial Representation:

Data was collected from 1 station(s) with the station code(s): 631WWK011.

Temporal Representation:

Data for this line of evidence were collected between 2011-08-16 and 2011-08-16

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program


DECISION ID	101199	Region 6
West Walker River

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 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 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 satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 0 of 1 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 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 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.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

State Board Decision Recommendation:

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 101199, Manganese	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

99009

Pollutant:

Manganese

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed STORET data for West Walker River 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:

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-NV09-302-WF-001)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2012-08-07 and 2012-08-07

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

QAPP not required for federal data

QAPP Information Reference(s):

This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements.


DECISION ID	78133	Region 6
West Walker River

Pollutant:	Mercury
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Four lines of evidence, two which evaluate sediment data for the COLD beneficial use, one which evaluates fish tissue data for the COMM beneficial use and one which evaluates fish tissue data for the WILD beneficial use, are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of 5 sediment samples exceed the water quality objective for the COLD beneficial use assessment. 0 of 1 composite trophic level three fish composed of five individual fish which fall within the CDFW length regulations exceed the objective for the COMM beneficial use. 0 of 1 composite trophic level three fish composed of five individual fish which exceed the objective for the WILD beneficial use Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 0 of 5 sediment samples exceeded the guideline for the COLD beneficial use; 0 of 1 composite trophic level three fish composed of five individual fish exceed the applicable objectives for the COMM & WILD beneficial uses The available information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 sediment samples are needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. A minimum of eight individual fish per composite sample are needed to fully determine the use support rating in accordance with the mercury objectives. 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 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.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

State Board Decision Recommendation:

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 78133, Mercury	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

100258

Pollutant:

Mercury

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends.

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended)

Evaluation Guideline:

The evaluation guideline for Mercury from MacDonald et al., 2000a states that the probable effect concentration for Mercury is 1.06 mg/kg. (dw = Dry Weight)

Guideline Reference:

Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31

Spatial Representation:

Data were collected from 1 (Station Codes: 631WWKLAR).

Temporal Representation:

Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2010-10-06 to 2013-10-09

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 78133, Mercury	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

43845

Pollutant:

Mercury

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for West Walker River 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:

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 West Walker River was collected at 1 monitoring site [ West Walker River at Topaz]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on a single day 9/23/2008.

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 78133, Mercury	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

132994

Pollutant:

Mercury

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Fish fillet

Beneficial Use:

Wildlife Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP Sportfish Rivers and Streams data for West Walker River to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 1 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Mercury. This LOE contains data only for trophic level 3 fish. The concentration of Mercury in fish collected within the same calendar year, for the same trophic level were averaged into a single sample for comparison with the objective. A total of 5 fish were aggregated into 1 annual averages, which consisted of 1 fish species (1 composite(s) of Rainbow Trout each composed of 5 fish per composite).

Data Reference:

Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP Sportfish Rivers and Streams.

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended)

Evaluation Guideline:

The Statewide Sport Fish Water Quality Objective for the protection of Wildlife Habitat comes from the Statewide Water Quality Control Plan for Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays, and Estuaries of California, and is 0.2 mg/Kg wet weight skinless fillet samples of trophic level 3, or trophic level 4 fish (whichever is highest in the water body) over a one year averaging period. If trophic level 3 fish are used in the assessment then the Prey Fish Water Quality Objective must also be used to determine that the Sport Fish Objective is being met. Trophic levels of applicable fish are defined in, but not limited to those in Attachment C of the Final Regulatory Language document (Appendix A) of State Water Resources Control Board Resolution No. 2017-0027.

Guideline 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

Spatial Representation:

Data was collected from 1 station(s) with the station code(s): 631WWK011.

Temporal Representation:

Data for this line of evidence were collected between 2011-08-16 and 2011-08-16

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 78133, Mercury	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

132905

Pollutant:

Mercury

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Fish fillet

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP Sportfish Rivers and Streams.

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended)

Evaluation Guideline:

The Statewide Sport Fish Water Quality Objective for the protection of the Commercial and Sport Fishing beneficial comes from the Statewide Water Quality Control Plan for Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays, and Estuaries of California, and is 0.2 mg/Kg wet weight skinless fillet samples of trophic level 3, or trophic level 4 fish (whichever is highest in the water body) over a one year averaging period. Trophic levels of applicable fish are defined in, but not limited to those in Attachment C of the Final Regulatory Language document (Appendix A) of State Water Resources Control Board Resolution No. 2017-0027.

Guideline 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

Spatial Representation:

Data was collected from 1 station(s) with the station code(s): 631WWK011.

Temporal Representation:

Data for this line of evidence were collected between 2011-08-16 and 2011-08-16

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program


DECISION ID	78134	Region 6
West Walker River

Pollutant:	Methyl Parathion
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 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 against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used does not satisfy the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 0 of 5 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 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.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

State Board Decision Recommendation:

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 78134, Methyl Parathion	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

132700

Pollutant:

Methyl Parathion

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends.

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended)

Evaluation Guideline:

The evaluation guideline for methyl parathion is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 6 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 6 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for methyl parathion from Ding et al. (2011).

Guideline Reference:

Toxicity of Sediment-Associated Pesticides to Chironomus dilutus and Hyalella azteca. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 61:83¿92.

Spatial Representation:

Data were collected from 1 (Station Codes: 631WWKLAR).

Temporal Representation:

Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2010-10-06 to 2013-10-09

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 78134, Methyl Parathion	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

44354

Pollutant:

Methyl Parathion

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for West Walker River 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:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended)

Evaluation Guideline:

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 West Walker River was collected at 1 monitoring site [ West Walker River at Topaz - 631WWK008]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on a single day 9/23/2008.

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	101200	Region 6
West Walker River

Pollutant:	Microcystins
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 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. Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of 10 samples exceed the water quality guideline across a range of Microcystin analytes. 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 10 total 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 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.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

State Board Decision Recommendation:

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 101200, Microcystins	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

99253

Pollutant:

Microcystins

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Fish fillet

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP Sportfish Rivers and Streams data for West Walker River to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows 0 of the 2 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Microcystins. Data were collected for 2 fish species (1 composite(s) of Rainbow Trout each composed of 1 fish per composite, 1 composite(s) of Rainbow Trout each composed of 5 fish per composite).

Data Reference:

Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP Sportfish Rivers and Streams.

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended)

Evaluation Guideline:

The 10 ng/g wet weight action level for microcystins for edible sport fish and shellfish containing microcystins identifies the maximum concentration of cyanotoxins that a typical consumer (one meal per week) could ingest without exceeding the reference dose, and is equal to the sum of the Microcystin congeners LA, LR, RR, and LY.(OEHHA 2012)

Guideline Reference:

Toxicological Summary and Suggested Action Levels to Reduce Potential Adverse Health Effects of Six Cyanotoxins

Spatial Representation:

Data was collected from 1 station(s) with the station code(s): 631WWK011.

Temporal Representation:

Data for this line of evidence were collected between 2011-08-16 and 2011-08-16

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 101200, Microcystins	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

99246

Pollutant:

Microcystin-YR

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Fish fillet

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP Sportfish Rivers and Streams data for West Walker River to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows 0 of the 2 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Microcystin-YR. Data were collected for 2 fish species (1 composite(s) of Rainbow Trout each composed of 1 fish per composite, 1 composite(s) of Rainbow Trout each composed of 5 fish per composite).

Data Reference:

Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP Sportfish Rivers and Streams.

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended)

Evaluation Guideline:

The 10 ng/g wet weight action level for microcystins for edible sport fish and shellfish containing Microcystin-YR identifies the maximum concentration of cyanotoxins that a typical consumer (one meal per week) could ingest without exceeding the reference dose.(OEHHA 2012)

Guideline Reference:

Toxicological Summary and Suggested Action Levels to Reduce Potential Adverse Health Effects of Six Cyanotoxins

Spatial Representation:

Data was collected from 1 station(s) with the station code(s): 631WWK011.

Temporal Representation:

Data for this line of evidence were collected between 2011-08-16 and 2011-08-16

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 101200, Microcystins	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

99240

Pollutant:

Microcystin-RR

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Fish fillet

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP Sportfish Rivers and Streams data for West Walker River to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows 0 of the 2 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Microcystin-RR. Data were collected for 2 fish species (1 composite(s) of Rainbow Trout each composed of 1 fish per composite, 1 composite(s) of Rainbow Trout each composed of 5 fish per composite).

Data Reference:

Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP Sportfish Rivers and Streams.

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended)

Evaluation Guideline:

The 10 ng/g wet weight action level for microcystins for edible sport fish and shellfish containing Microcystin-RR identifies the maximum concentration of cyanotoxins that a typical consumer (one meal per week) could ingest without exceeding the reference dose.(OEHHA 2012)

Guideline Reference:

Toxicological Summary and Suggested Action Levels to Reduce Potential Adverse Health Effects of Six Cyanotoxins

Spatial Representation:

Data was collected from 1 station(s) with the station code(s): 631WWK011.

Temporal Representation:

Data for this line of evidence were collected between 2011-08-16 and 2011-08-16

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 101200, Microcystins	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

99485

Pollutant:

Microcystin-LR

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Fish fillet

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP Sportfish Rivers and Streams data for West Walker River to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows 0 of the 2 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Microcystin-LR. Data were collected for 2 fish species (1 composite(s) of Rainbow Trout each composed of 1 fish per composite, 1 composite(s) of Rainbow Trout each composed of 5 fish per composite).

Data Reference:

Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP Sportfish Rivers and Streams.

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended)

Evaluation Guideline:

The 10 ng/g wet weight action level for microcystins for edible sport fish and shellfish containing Microcystin-LR identifies the maximum concentration of cyanotoxins that a typical consumer (one meal per week) could ingest without exceeding the reference dose.(OEHHA 2012)

Guideline Reference:

Toxicological Summary and Suggested Action Levels to Reduce Potential Adverse Health Effects of Six Cyanotoxins

Spatial Representation:

Data was collected from 1 station(s) with the station code(s): 631WWK011.

Temporal Representation:

Data for this line of evidence were collected between 2011-08-16 and 2011-08-16

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 101200, Microcystins	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

99479

Pollutant:

Microcystin-LA

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Fish fillet

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP Sportfish Rivers and Streams data for West Walker River to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows 0 of the 2 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Microcystin-LA. Data were collected for 2 fish species (1 composite(s) of Rainbow Trout each composed of 1 fish per composite, 1 composite(s) of Rainbow Trout each composed of 5 fish per composite).

Data Reference:

Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP Sportfish Rivers and Streams.

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended)

Evaluation Guideline:

The 10 ng/g wet weight action level for microcystins for edible sport fish and shellfish containing Microcystin-LA identifies the maximum concentration of cyanotoxins that a typical consumer (one meal per week) could ingest without exceeding the reference dose.(OEHHA 2012)

Guideline Reference:

Toxicological Summary and Suggested Action Levels to Reduce Potential Adverse Health Effects of Six Cyanotoxins

Spatial Representation:

Data was collected from 1 station(s) with the station code(s): 631WWK011.

Temporal Representation:

Data for this line of evidence were collected between 2011-08-16 and 2011-08-16

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program


DECISION ID	101201	Region 6
West Walker River

Pollutant:	Mirex
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 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 are necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant, although zero samples can be assessed in either line of evidence due to quantitation issues. 0 of 0 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 0 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 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.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

State Board Decision Recommendation:

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 101201, Mirex	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

99566

Pollutant:

Mirex

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Tissue

Matrix:

Tissue

Fraction:

Fish fillet

Beneficial Use:

Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Waterboard staff assessed SWAMP Sportfish Rivers and Streams data for West Walker River to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: Zero of Zero samples exceeded the water quality standard for Mirex. Although data was collected for 1 fish species (1 composite(s) of Rainbow Trout each composed of 5 fish per composite), all 1 sample(s) had to be thrown out due to quantitation issues.

Data Reference:

Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP Sportfish Rivers and Streams.

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended)

Evaluation Guideline:

The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for mirex in fish tissue is 0.28 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets. (Klasing, S., and R. Brodberg, 2008; OEHHA, 1992)

Guideline Reference:

Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene

Guideline Reference:

Expedited Cancer Potency Values and Proposed Regulatory Levels for Certain Proposition 65 Carcinogens.

Spatial Representation:

Data was collected from 1 station(s) with the station code(s): 631WWK011.

Temporal Representation:

Data for this line of evidence were collected between 2011-08-16 and 2011-08-16

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program


DECISION ID	78135	Region 6
West Walker River

Pollutant:	Nickel
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 1 of 4 samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 1 of 4 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 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.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

State Board Decision Recommendation:

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 78135, Nickel	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

100405

Pollutant:

Nickel

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends data for West Walker River to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 1 of the 3 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Nickel .

Data Reference:

Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends.

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended)

Evaluation Guideline:

The evaluation guideline for Nickel from MacDonald et al., 2000a which states that the probable effect concentration for Nickel is 48.6 mg/kg. (dw = Dry Weight)

Guideline Reference:

Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31

Spatial Representation:

Data were collected from 1 (Station Codes: 631WWKLAR).

Temporal Representation:

Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2010-10-06 to 2013-10-09

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 78135, Nickel	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

43855

Pollutant:

Nickel

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for West Walker River 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:

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 West Walker River was collected at 1 monitoring site [ West Walker River at Topaz]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on a single day 9/23/2008.

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	77646	Region 6
West Walker River

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:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant against the MUN beneficial use. 0 of 49 samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 0 of 49 samples exceeded the criteria 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 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:

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 77646, Nitrate/Nitrite (Nitrite + Nitrate as N)	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

97201

Pollutant:

Nitrate/Nitrite (Nitrite + Nitrate as N)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB6 Monitoring data for West Walker River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 19 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 4 monitoring site(s) (631WWK001, 631WWK007, 631WWK008, 631WWK010)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2012-04-05 and 2015-10-15

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 77646, Nitrate/Nitrite (Nitrite + Nitrate as N)	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

98273

Pollutant:

Nitrate/Nitrite (Nitrite + Nitrate as N)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

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:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended)

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 2 monitoring site(s) (631PS0081, 631PS0145)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2012-08-28 and 2014-07-02

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 77646, Nitrate/Nitrite (Nitrite + Nitrate as N)	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

97200

Pollutant:

Nitrate/Nitrite (Nitrite + Nitrate as N)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Not Recorded

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB6 Monitoring data for West Walker River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 8 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:

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) (631WWK001)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2011-01-20 and 2011-09-29

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 77646, Nitrate/Nitrite (Nitrite + Nitrate as N)	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

44324

Pollutant:

Nitrate/Nitrite (Nitrite + Nitrate as N)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for West Walker River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 5 samples exceed the criterion for Nitrate/Nitrite as N.

Data Reference:

RWB6 Trend Monitoring CY2006 CY2007

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended)

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for West Walker River was collected at 1 monitoring site [ West Walker River, at Coleville]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 8/8/2007-12/26/2007.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

2002 QAMP (Quality Assurance Management Plan) for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 77646, Nitrate/Nitrite (Nitrite + Nitrate as N)	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

98177

Pollutant:

Nitrate/Nitrite (Nitrite + Nitrate as N)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB6 Monitoring data for West Walker River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 3 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Nitrate + Nitrite as N.

Data Reference:

Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for the SWAMP RWB6 Monitoring (tissue and water).

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

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) (631WWK001)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-09-13 and 2010-11-01

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 77646, Nitrate/Nitrite (Nitrite + Nitrate as N)	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

7777

Pollutant:

Nitrate/Nitrite (Nitrite + Nitrate as N)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

The U.S. Geological Survey sampled nitrite plus nitrate under the Region 6 SWAMP program between 2002 and 2005. Two of the analytical results were estimated values and one was below the detection level. Concentrations in the remaining 9 samples ranged from 0.002 to 0.149 mg/L. The MCL was not exceeded.

Data Reference:

2007. SWAMP Data for the West Walker River and East Walker River Hydrologic Units

SWAMP Data:

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 nitrite plus nitrate is 10 mg/L, expressed "as nitrogen."

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended)

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

One station, West Walker River near Coleville, was sampled.

Temporal Representation:

Twelve quarterly samples were collected between 2002 and 2005.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Data meet the quality assurance requirements of the SWAMP QAPP.

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	71957	Region 6
West Walker River

Pollutant:	Nitrogen
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 4 of 17 samples exceed the water quality objective. LOE ID # 7778 had skewed samples due to sampling during high runoff and so may not be representative of impairment of total Nitrogen as N. For this reason, LOE ID 7778 has been discounted from this assessment and 2 of 15 samples therefore exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Two of five 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 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 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:

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 71957, Nitrogen	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

7778

Pollutant:

Total Nitrogen as N

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

The U.S. Geological Survey sampled the West Walker River under the Region 6 SWAMP program between 2002 and 2005. Calculated total nitrogen values included three estimated values. Concentrations in the other 9 individual samples ranged 0.06 to 1.583 mg/L. These included two very high values that probably reflected high spring runoff and a summer thunderstorm event. Two of four annual averages included estimated values. The "average" for 2002 is a single estimated value. The average for 2003, counting the below detection level value as zero and disregarding the estimated value, was 0.033 mg/L. The averages for 2004 and 2005 were 0.532 and 0.438 mg/L. Both exceeded the objective but were skewed by the high single sample values.

Data Reference:

2007. SWAMP Data for the West Walker River and East Walker River Hydrologic Units

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

The site-specific objective for total nitrogen (in Lahontan Basin Plan Table 3-15) includes an annual average of 0.20 mg/L and a 90th percentile value of 0.02 mg/L.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended)

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

One station, West Walker River near Coleville, was sampled.

Temporal Representation:

Twelve quarterly samples each (1 to 4 per year) were collected for total Kjeldahl nitrogen and nitrate plus nitrite between 2002 and 2005. Concentrations of total nitrogen were calculated from these samples. Four annual averages were calculated.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Data meet the quality assurance requirements of the SWAMP QAPP.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 71957, Nitrogen	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

96705

Pollutant:

Total Nitrogen as N

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data were collected by Lahontan field staff collecting data for the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Perennial Stream Surveys. One data point was collected on one day in August 2012 . The concentration was 0.0341 mg/L, which attains the site specific objective.

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 nitrogen in the West Walker River, as referenced in the Lahontan Basin Plan table 3-15, is an annual average not to exceed 0.2 mg/L.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended)

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Data were collected from site 631PS0081, which is located above Levitt Station on the Sonora Pass Road.

Temporal Representation:

Data were collected on one day in August 2012.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Data were collected in accordance with the SWAMP QAPP.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 71957, Nitrogen	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

32326

Pollutant:

Total Nitrogen as N

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

The annual average did not exceeded the water quality objective for total nitrogen. Annual averages were calculated by water year starting in October 1st through September 30th. Total nitrogen was calculated by summing nitrate + nitrite as N data with TKN data when they were collected on the same day. Four pairs were summed and then averaged before comparing with the annual objective.

Data Reference:

RWB6 Trend Monitoring CY2006 CY2007

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Table 3-17 of the Basin Plan states that the water quality objective for nitrogen, total for West Walker River at Coleville is an annual average objective of 0.2 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 West Walker River, at Coleville (631WWK001).

Temporal Representation:

Samples were collected on 8/8/2007, 9/18/2007, 11/8/2007, and 12/26/2007.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

2002 QAMP (Quality Assurance Management Plan) for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 71957, Nitrogen	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

96572

Pollutant:

Total Nitrogen as N

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data were collected by the Nevada Department of Environmental Protection and consists of two years of one to three times a year sampling. Total Nitrogen concentrations were below the quantification limit in six out of the ten samples, and those data were not used in the assessment because the quantification limit is not known. The remaining four samples contained between 0.3 and 1.3 mg/L Total Nitrogen and result in two annual averages that both exceed the 0.20 mg/L objective. One sample was collected 3/9/2011 and was 0.3 mg/L; three samples were collected in 2013 (4/17/2013; 8/5/2013; 10/21/2013) and the annual average was 0.67 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 data collected at the West Fork Walker River at Topaz Lane can be found in the Lahontan Basin Plan Table 3-15 for Topaz Lake and is an annual average value of 0.20 mg/L (West Walker River at Coleville)

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 Walker River at Topaz Lane site 21NEV1_WQX-NV09-302-WF-001

Temporal Representation:

Data were collected three to four times a year during 2011-2013.

Environmental Conditions:

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 that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 71957, Nitrogen	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

96700

Pollutant:

Total Nitrogen as N

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

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 between October 2010 and July 2015. Raw data concentrations ranged from non-detectable to 0.187 mg/L. Nine annual averages were computed, none of which exceeded the site specific 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 site specific objective for nitrogen in the West Walker River, as referenced in the Lahontan Basin Plan table 3-15, is an annual average not to exceed 0.2 mg/L.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended)

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Data were collected from four sites: 631WWK001, which is located south of the town of Walker downstream of the confluence with Rock Creek; 631WWK007, which is located above the confluence with the Little Walker River; 631WWK008, which is located approx. 1 mile upstream of Topaz Lake; and 631WWK010, which is located upstream of the pack-station.

Temporal Representation:

Data were collected in predominantly quarterly fashion between October 2010 and July 2015 at 631WWK001. Data were collected at the other three stations on one day in September 2012.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Data were collected in accordance with the SWAMP QAPP.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program


DECISION ID	101202	Region 6
West Walker River

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 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 are necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of 6 samples exceed the water quality objective (0 of 5 samples for Nitrite and Nitrite NO2, 0 of 1 samples for Nitrogen, Nitrite). 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 1 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 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 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.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

State Board Decision Recommendation:

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 101202, Nitrogen, Nitrite	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

44329

Pollutant:

Nitrite as Nitrite NO2

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for West Walker River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 5 samples exceed the criterion for Nitrite as N.

Data Reference:

RWB6 Trend Monitoring CY2006 CY2007

SWAMP Data:

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:

Data for this line of evidence for West Walker River was collected at 1 monitoring site [ West Walker River, at Coleville]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 8/8/2007-12/26/2007.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

2002 QAMP (Quality Assurance Management Plan) for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 101202, Nitrogen, Nitrite	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

98501

Pollutant:

Nitrogen, Nitrite

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB6 Monitoring data for West Walker River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality standard for 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:

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) (631WWK001)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-09-13 and 2010-09-13

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program


DECISION ID	70721	Region 6
West Walker River

Pollutant:	Oxygen, Dissolved
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board 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 one line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. Nine lines of evidence, six which evaluate the available dissolved oxygen data and three which evaluate the available dissolved oxygen saturation data are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant for the COLD beneficial use. 2 of 40 dissolved oxygen samples exceed the water quality objective; 4 of 31 dissolved oxygen saturation samples exceed the objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the 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 40 dissolved oxygen samples exceed the water quality objective; 4 of 31 dissolved oxygen saturation samples exceed the objective and these sample sizes are sufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy that the water quality standards are met. 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 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:

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 70721, Oxygen, Dissolved	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

5729

Pollutant:

Dissolved oxygen saturation

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Aquatic Life Use:

Fish Spawning

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

The U.S. Geological Survey measured dissolved oxygen under the Region 6 SWAMP program. Ten samples collected between had percent saturation values 2002 and 2005 ranging from 92 to 117 percent. The objective was not violated.

Data Reference:

2007. SWAMP Data for the East Fork and West Fork Carson River Hydrologic Units

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

The Lahontan Basin Plan's regionwide narrative objective for dissolved oxygen provides that percent saturation shall not be depressed more than 10 percent nor shall the minimum dissolved oxygen concentration be less than 80 percent of saturation.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended)

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

One station, West Walker River near Coleville, was sampled.

Temporal Representation:

Ten samples were collected (one sample in 2002 and 9 samples at quarterly intervals between 2003 and 2005).

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Data meet the quality assurance requirements of the SWAMP QAPP.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 70721, Oxygen, Dissolved	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

44400

Pollutant:

Dissolved oxygen saturation

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for West Walker River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 2 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Oxygen, Saturation.

Data Reference:

RWB6 Trend Monitoring CY2006 CY2007

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

The Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region's water quality objective states that the dissolved oxygen concentration shall not be less than 80 percent of saturation.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended)

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for West Walker River was collected at 1 monitoring site [ West Walker River, at Coleville]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 8/8/2007-12/26/2007.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

2002 QAMP (Quality Assurance Management Plan) for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 70721, Oxygen, Dissolved	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

32271

Pollutant:

Oxygen, Dissolved

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Two of 6 samples exceeded the water quality objective.

Data Reference:

RWB6 Trend Monitoring CY2006 CY2007

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

The objective from Lahontan Basin Plan Table 3-6, is a 1 day minimum dissolved oxygen concentration of 8.0 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 the following station: 631WWK001 - West Walker River, at Coleville.

Temporal Representation:

Samples were collected between August and December 2007

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

2002 QAMP (Quality Assurance Management Plan) for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 70721, Oxygen, Dissolved	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

4927

Pollutant:

Oxygen, Dissolved

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Aquatic Life Use:

Fish Spawning

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

The U.S. Geological Survey measured dissolved oxygen under the Region 6 SWAMP program between 2002 and 2005. Ten samples had dissolved oxygen concentrations ranging from 8.3 to 11 mg/L. The objective was not violated.

Data Reference:

2007. SWAMP Data for the West Walker River and East Walker River Hydrologic Units

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

For waters designated for the COLD and SPWN beneficial uses the 1- day minimum objective is 8 mg/L (Lahontan Basin Plan Table 3-6)

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended)

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

One station, West Walker River near Coleville, was sampled.

Temporal Representation:

Ten samples were collected. One sample was collected in 2002 and the remainder were collected quarterly between 2003 and 2005.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Data meet the quality assurance requirements of the SWAMP QAPP.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 70721, Oxygen, Dissolved	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

129954

Pollutant:

Oxygen, Dissolved

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends data for West Walker River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Oxygen, Dissolved.

Data Reference:

Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends.

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

For waters with the beneficial uses of COLD, COLD with SPWN, WARM, and WARM with SPWN, the minimum dissolved oxygen concentration shall not be less than that specified in Table 3-6. (Water Quality Control Plan, Lahontan Region)

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended)

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site(s) (631WWKLAR)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2014-10-08 and 2014-10-08

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 70721, Oxygen, Dissolved	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

130052

Pollutant:

Oxygen, Dissolved

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB6 Monitoring data for West Walker River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 2 of 15 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Oxygen, Saturation.

Data Reference:

Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for the SWAMP RWB6 Monitoring (tissue and water).

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

The Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region's water quality objective states that the dissolved oxygen concentration shall not be less than 80 percent of saturation.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended)

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site(s) (631WWK001)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-09-13 and 2013-06-13

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 70721, Oxygen, Dissolved	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

130132

Pollutant:

Oxygen, Dissolved

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB6 Monitoring data for West Walker River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 15 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Oxygen, Dissolved.

Data Reference:

Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for the SWAMP RWB6 Monitoring (tissue and water).

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

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) (631WWK001)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-09-13 and 2013-06-13

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 70721, Oxygen, Dissolved	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

130043

Pollutant:

Oxygen, Dissolved

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

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:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended)

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 2 monitoring site(s) (631PS0081, 631PS0145)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2012-08-28 and 2014-07-02

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 70721, Oxygen, Dissolved	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

130070

Pollutant:

Oxygen, Dissolved

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed STORET data for West Walker River 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:

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-NV09-302-WF-001)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2011-03-09 and 2012-08-07

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

QAPP not required for federal data

QAPP Information Reference(s):

This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements.


DECISION ID	78136	Region 6
West Walker River

Pollutant:	PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Z0 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 against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 0 of 5 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 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.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

State Board Decision Recommendation:

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 78136, PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

100288

Pollutant:

PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends.

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended)

Evaluation Guideline:

The evaluation guideline for Total PCBs from MacDonald et al., 2000a which states that the probable effect concentration for Total PCBs is 676 ug/kg. (dw = Dry Weight)

Guideline Reference:

Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31

Spatial Representation:

Data were collected from 1 (Station Codes: 631WWKLAR).

Temporal Representation:

Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2010-10-06 to 2013-10-09

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 78136, PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

33260

Pollutant:

PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

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 631WWK008 (West Walker River at Topaz).

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected on 9/23/2008.

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	78183	Region 6
West Walker River

Pollutant:	Permethrin
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 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 against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 0 of 5 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 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.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

State Board Decision Recommendation:

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 78183, Permethrin	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

100396

Pollutant:

Permethrin

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends.

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended)

Evaluation Guideline:

The evaluation guideline for permethrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 8.9 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 8.9 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for permethrin from Amweg et al. (2005).

Guideline Reference:

Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5

Spatial Representation:

Data were collected from 1 (Station Codes: 631WWKLAR).

Temporal Representation:

Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2010-10-06 to 2013-10-09

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 78183, Permethrin	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

44393

Pollutant:

Permethrin

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for West Walker River 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:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended)

Evaluation Guideline:

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 West Walker River was collected at 1 monitoring site [ West Walker River at Topaz - 631WWK008]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on a single day 9/23/2008.

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	101205	Region 6
West Walker River

Pollutant:	Pyrethroids
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board 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 5 samples exceed the water quality criteria. 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 5 samples exceeded the criteria 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 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.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

State Board Decision Recommendation:

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 101205, Pyrethroids	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

100407

Pollutant:

Pyrethroids

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends.

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended)

Evaluation Guideline:

The evaluation guideline for the protection of aquatic life from pyrethroids is one toxic unit equivalent. A toxic unit equivalent is equal to the sum of; Bifenthrin, Cyfluthrin, Cypermethrin, Lambda-Cyhalothrin, and Permethrin, each having their reported concentration divided their respective evaluation guideline prior to being summed. If this results in a value greater than one, the sample day is considered to be in exceedance of the water quality standard. (Department of Fish and Game Aquatic Life Criteria for Pyrethroid Insecticides, 2000)

Guideline Reference:

Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5

Guideline Reference:

Partitioning, bioavailability, and toxicity of the pyrethroid insecticide cypermethrin in sediments. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 21:9-15

Guideline Reference:

Toxicity of Sediment-Associated Pesticides to Chironomus dilutus and Hyalella azteca. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 61:83¿92.

Guideline Reference:

Whole-sediment toxicity identification evaluation tools for pyrethroid insecticides: I. piperonyl butoxide addition. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 26:2389-2396.

Guideline Reference:

Aquatic life water quality criteria derived via the UC Davis method: ll. Pyrethroid insecticides. Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 216:51-103.

Spatial Representation:

Data were collected from 1 (Station Codes: 631WWKLAR).

Temporal Representation:

Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2010-10-06 to 2014-10-08

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program


DECISION ID	101206	Region 6
West Walker River

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 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 are necessary to assess listing status. Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant, two for the AG beneficial use and 2 for the MUN beneficial use. 0 of 23 samples exceed the water quality objective for the AG beneficial use, and 3 of the 23 samples exceed the objective for the MUN beneficial use. Neither of these assessments warrant a listing of this waterbody/pollutant combination on the list of impaired waters. 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 23 samples exceeded the objective for the AG beneficial use; 3 of 23 samples exceeded the objective for the MUN beneficial use 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 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 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.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

State Board Decision Recommendation:

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 101206, Sodium	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

99083

Pollutant:

Sodium

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Agricultural Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed STORET data for West Walker River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 3 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:

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-NV09-302-WF-001)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2011-03-09 and 2012-08-07

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

QAPP not required for federal data

QAPP Information Reference(s):

This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 101206, Sodium	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

97102

Pollutant:

Sodium

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB6 Monitoring data for West Walker River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 3 of 20 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:

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) (631WWK001)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-10-22 and 2015-10-15

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 101206, Sodium	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

99084

Pollutant:

Sodium

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed STORET data for West Walker River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 3 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:

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-NV09-302-WF-001)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2011-03-09 and 2012-08-07

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

QAPP not required for federal data

QAPP Information Reference(s):

This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 101206, Sodium	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

98215

Pollutant:

Sodium

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Agricultural Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB6 Monitoring data for West Walker River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 20 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:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended)

Evaluation Guideline:

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) (631WWK001)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-10-22 and 2015-10-15

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program


DECISION ID	79562	Region 6
West Walker River

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:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Revised
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. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 1 of 7 samples exceed the water quality objective. The one exceeding data point calculated during the previous assessment cycle may have been calculated incorrectly. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 1 of 7 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 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.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

State Board Decision Recommendation:

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 79562, Sodium Adsorption Ratio (SAR)	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

133526

Pollutant:

Sodium Adsorption Ratio (SAR)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Agricultural Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data were collected by the Region 6 SWAMP program between 2010 and 2015. Annual average SAR ratios ranged from 0.22 to 1.12. No SAR annual average exceeded the objective of 2. 2 samples of each analyte were thrown out in 2011 because of hold time violations.

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 Walker River, as stipulated in the Lahontan Basin Plan 3-10, is a ratio not to exceed 2. 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, 631WWK001, located near the town of Coleville.

Temporal Representation:

Data were collected once in 2010 and 2011, and in quarterly fashion from 2012 to 2015.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Data were collected in accordance with the SWAMP QAPP.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 79562, Sodium Adsorption Ratio (SAR)	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

32274

Pollutant:

Sodium Adsorption Ratio (SAR)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Agricultural Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

The annual average for year 2007 was 6.48 and does exceed the water quality objective.

Data Reference:

RWB6 Trend Monitoring CY2006 CY2007

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

The applicable site specific water quality objective from the amended Lahontan Basin Plan for the West Walker River states that the annual average SAR (sodium adsorption rate) should not exceed 2.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended)

Objective/Criterion Reference:

2006. Amendments to the Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region: Revised Sodium-Related Standards for the Carson and Walker River Watersheds. Adopted October 12, 2006 under Resolution R6T-2006-0047

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Data were collected at the following station: 631WWK001 - West Walker River at Coleville.

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected during August 2007 and November 2007.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

2002 QAMP (Quality Assurance Management Plan) for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)


DECISION ID	70729	Region 6
West Walker River

Pollutant:	Specific Conductivity
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board 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. Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of 53 samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 0 of 53 samples exceeded the criteria 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 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:

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 70729, Specific Conductivity	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

44380

Pollutant:

Specific Conductivity

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for West Walker River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 10 samples exceed the criterion for Conductivity(Us).

Data Reference:

RWB6 Trend Monitoring CY2006 CY2007

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

The California Secondary MCL that is incorporated by reference in the Water Quality Control Plan, Lahontan Region for specific conductance is 900 uS/cm (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:

Data for this line of evidence for West Walker River was collected at 1 monitoring site [ West Walker River, at Coleville]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 8/8/2007-12/26/2007.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

2002 QAMP (Quality Assurance Management Plan) for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 70729, Specific Conductivity	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

97734

Pollutant:

Specific Conductivity

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

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:

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 2 monitoring site(s) (631PS0081, 631PS0145)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2012-08-28 and 2014-07-02

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 70729, Specific Conductivity	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

4930

Pollutant:

Specific Conductance

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

The U.S. Geological Survey measured specific conductance under the Region 6 SWAMP program between 2002 and 2005. Specific conductance in 12 quarterly field measurements ranged from 48 to 160 uS/cm. The MCL was not violated.

Data Reference:

2007. SWAMP Data for the West Walker River and East Walker River Hydrologic Units

SWAMP Data:

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:

Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended)

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

One station, West Walker River near Coleville, was sampled.

Temporal Representation:

Twelve quarterly field measurements were taken between 2002 and 2005.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Data meet the quality assurance requirements of the SWAMP QAPP.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 70729, Specific Conductivity	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

97249

Pollutant:

Specific Conductivity

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

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:

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) (631WWK001)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-09-13 and 2015-10-15

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 70729, Specific Conductivity	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

97291

Pollutant:

Specific Conductivity

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends data for West Walker River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceeded the water quality standard for SpecificConductivity.

Data Reference:

Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends.

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

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) (631WWKLAR)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2013-10-09 and 2014-10-08

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program


DECISION ID	70741	Region 6
West Walker River

Pollutant:	Sulfates
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of 41 samples exceed the water quality objective. For this decision, two different fractions were used (dissolved/total dissolved) although the same MCL objective was used for both 2010 and 2012 listing cycles. Therefore, these LOEs should be evaluated together to determine impairment. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 0 of 41 samples exceeded the criteria 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 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:

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 70741, Sulfates	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

98607

Pollutant:

Sulfates

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for the SWAMP RWB6 Monitoring (tissue and water).

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

The California Secondary MCL that is incorporated by reference in the Water Quality Control Plan, Lahontan Region for Sulfate 250 mg/L (Water Quality Control Plan, Lahontan Region).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended)

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site(s) (631WWK001)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-10-22 and 2015-10-15

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 70741, Sulfates	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

32261

Pollutant:

Sulfates

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

The samples collected did not exceed the Water Quality Objective.

Data Reference:

RWB6 Trend Monitoring CY2006 CY2007

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

California Secondary Maximum Contaminant Levels (SMCLs) apply to ambient waters under the Lahontan Basin Plan's "Chemical Constituents" objective. The SMCL for Sulfates (SO4) is 250 mg/L.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended)

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Data were collected at the following station: 631WWK001 - West Walker River, at Coleville.

Temporal Representation:

Samples were collected on the following dates: 8/8/2007 and 11/8/2007.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

2002 QAMP (Quality Assurance Management Plan) for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 70741, Sulfates	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

4932

Pollutant:

Sulfates

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

The U.S. Geological Survey sampled sulfate under the Region 6 SWAMP program between 2002 and 2005. Sulfate concentrations in 12 quarterly samples ranged from 1.7 to 10.2 mg/L. The MCL was not violated.

Data Reference:

2007. SWAMP Data for the West Walker River and East Walker River Hydrologic Units

SWAMP Data:

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 sulfate is 250 mg/L.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended)

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

One station, West Walker River near Coleville, was sampled.

Temporal Representation:

Twelve quarterly samples were collected between 2002 and 2005.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Data meet the quality assurance requirements of the SWAMP QAPP.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 70741, Sulfates	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

98325

Pollutant:

Sulfates

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

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 Secondary MCL that is incorporated by reference in the Water Quality Control Plan, Lahontan Region for Sulfate 250 mg/L (Water Quality Control Plan, Lahontan Region).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended)

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 2 monitoring site(s) (631PS0081, 631PS0145)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2012-08-28 and 2014-07-02

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 70741, Sulfates	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

99077

Pollutant:

Sulfates

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed STORET data for West Walker River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Sulfate.

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 Sulfate 250 mg/L (Water Quality Control Plan, Lahontan Region).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended)

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site(s) (21NEV1_WQX-NV09-302-WF-001)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2011-03-09 and 2012-08-07

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

QAPP not required for federal data

QAPP Information Reference(s):

This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements.


DECISION ID	80159	Region 6
West Walker River

Pollutant:	Toxicity
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of 6 samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 0 of 6 samples exceeded the criteria 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 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:

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 80159, Toxicity	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

99093

Pollutant:

Toxicity

LOE Subgroup:

Toxicity

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

TOXICITY TESTING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

0 of the 5 samples collected by SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends for West Walker River exhibited toxicity. A sample may have multiple toxicity test results, but will only be counted once. A sample is defined as being collected on the same day, at the same location with the same lab sample ID (if provided). The following organisms and parameters were utilized for the toxicity tests: Hyalella azteca, for Growth (wt/surv indiv), Hyalella azteca, for Survival

Data Reference:

Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends.

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Lahontan Basin Plan)

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended)

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 stations. Monitoring site(s): ( 631WWKLAR )

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-10-06 and 2014-10-08.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 80159, Toxicity	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

32014

Pollutant:

Toxicity

LOE Subgroup:

Toxicity

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

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:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended)

Evaluation Guideline:

Toxicity is defined as a statistically significant effect in the sample exposure compared to the control using EPA-recommended hypothesis testing. For SWAMP data exceedances are counted with the significant effect code SL. SL is defined as the result being significant compared to the negative control based on a statistical test, less than stated the alpha level, AND less than the evaluation threshold.

Guideline Reference:

Methods for Measuring the Toxicity and Bioaccumulation of Sediment-associated Contaminants with Freshwater Invertebrates, Second Edition. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research and Development, Duluth, MI , U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water, Washington, DC EPA-600/R-99/064

Spatial Representation:

The sample was collected at station 631WWK008.

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	78576	Region 6
West Walker River

Pollutant:	Zinc
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 0 of 4 samples exceeded the guidelines 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 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.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

State Board Decision Recommendation:

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 78576, Zinc	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

43865

Pollutant:

Zinc

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for West Walker River 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:

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 West Walker River was collected at 1 monitoring site [ West Walker River at Topaz]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on a single day 9/23/2008.

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

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 78576, Zinc	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

100296

Pollutant:

Zinc

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Sediment

Matrix:

Sediment

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends.

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended)

Evaluation Guideline:

The evaluation guideline for Zinc from MacDonald et al., 2000a which states that the probable effect concentration for Zinc is 459 mg/kg. (dw = Dry Weight)

Guideline Reference:

Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31

Spatial Representation:

Data were collected from 1 (Station Codes: 631WWKLAR).

Temporal Representation:

Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2010-10-06 to 2013-10-09

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program


DECISION ID	71255	Region 6
West Walker River

Pollutant:	pH
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board 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. Ten lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the 12 exceed the water quality objective. For the objective, it is based on ambient pH levels which are currently unknown, so this waterbody can not adequately be assessed for an impairment unless historical data exists to give a baseline for ambient pH levels. As a result, most line of evidence display 0 of 0 samples exceeding the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero 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 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.

State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation:

State Board Decision Recommendation:

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 71255, pH	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

129547

Pollutant:

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

0 of 0 samples exceeded the water quality standard for pH. Although pH data does exist for this waterbody, the objective for this pollutant requires background information that is currently unavailable, and therefore an assessment of water quality standards could not be made.

Data Reference:

Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends.

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

The Lahontan Basin Plan's regionwide objective for pH states: \In fresh waters with designated beneficial uses of COLD or WARM, changes in normal ambient pH levels shall not exceed 0.5 pH units. For all other waters of the region, the pH shall not be depressed below 6.5 nor raised above 8.5 units. The Regional Board recognizes that some waters of the Region may have natural pH levels outside of the 6.5 to 8.5 range. Compliance with the pH objective for these waters will be determined on a case-by-case basis.\""

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended)

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site(s) (631WWKLAR)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2014-10-08 and 2014-10-08

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 71255, pH	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

129776

Pollutant:

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data Reference:

Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends.

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

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) (631WWKLAR)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2014-10-08 and 2014-10-08

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 71255, pH	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

129815

Pollutant:

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

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:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended)

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 2 monitoring site(s) (631PS0081, 631PS0145)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2012-08-28 and 2014-07-02

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 71255, pH	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

129540

Pollutant:

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

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:

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) (631WWK001)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-09-13 and 2015-10-15

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 71255, pH	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

129860

Pollutant:

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

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:

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-NV09-302-WF-001)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2011-03-09 and 2012-08-07

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

QAPP not required for federal data

QAPP Information Reference(s):

This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 71255, pH	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

32258

Pollutant:

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

There were 6 samples with pH ranging from 8 to 8.7. The normal ambient pH level for this water body is unknown and so it is unknown whether any exceedences occurred.

Data Reference:

RWB6 Trend Monitoring CY2006 CY2007

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

The applicable objective 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." (Lahontan Basin Plan).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended)

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected at Station 631WWK001 - West Walker River, at Coleville.

Temporal Representation:

Samples were collected between 8/8/2007 and 12/26/2007.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

2002 QAMP (Quality Assurance Management Plan) for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 71255, pH	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

4928

Pollutant:

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

The U.S. Geological Survey measured pH quarterly under the Region 6 SWAMP program between 2002 and 2005. 12 samples had field pH values ranging from 7.4 to 8.7 units.. (The 6.5 to 8.5 unit limits do not apply to waters designated for the COLD use.)

Data Reference:

2007. SWAMP Data for the West Walker River and East Walker River Hydrologic Units

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

The pH objective in the North Lahontan Basin Plan 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:

One station, West Walker River near Coleville, was sampled.

Temporal Representation:

Twelve quarterly pH measurements were taken between 2002 and 2005.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Data meet the quality assurance requirements of the SWAMP QAPP.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 71255, pH	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

129854

Pollutant:

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

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:

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-NV09-302-WF-001)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2011-03-09 and 2012-08-07

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

QAPP not required for federal data

QAPP Information Reference(s):

This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 71255, pH	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

129813

Pollutant:

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

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:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended)

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 2 monitoring site(s) (631PS0081, 631PS0145)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2012-08-28 and 2014-07-02

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 71255, pH	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

129537

Pollutant:

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

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:

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) (631WWK001)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-09-13 and 2015-10-15

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program


DECISION ID	79187	Region 6
West Walker River

Pollutant:	Phosphorus
Final Listing Decision:	List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Revised
Sources:	A Source Unknown
Expected TMDL Completion Date:	2031
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 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, although LOE ID # 4929 data was not included in the evaluation because there was a mistake with holding times. Functionally there are four lines of evidence for this assessment. 13 of 19 samples exceeded 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 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. 13 of 19 samples exceeded 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 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:

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 79187, Phosphorus	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

34532

Pollutant:

Phosphorus

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

The annual average for 2007 exceeds the water quality objective for Total Phosphorus. Total Phosphorus was calculated by summing Orthophosphate as P and Phosphorus as P data. Phosphorus as P data were averaged when they were collected on the same day. 4 pairs were summed and then averaged for 2007 before comparing with the Total Phosphorus annual average objective. The data was not used in cases where only Phosphorus as P was available without Orthophosphate.

Data Reference:

RWB6 Trend Monitoring CY2006 CY2007

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Table 3-15 of the Basin Plan states that the water quality objective for Total Phosphorus for West Walker River at Coleville is an annual average objective of 0.01 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 West Walker River, at Coleville (631WWK001).

Temporal Representation:

Samples were collected on 8/8/2007, 9/18/2007, 11/8/2007, and 12/26/2007.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

2002 QAMP (Quality Assurance Management Plan) for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 79187, Phosphorus	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

96701

Pollutant:

Phosphorus

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

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 between October 2010 and October 2015. Raw data concentrations ranged from non-detectable to 0.0761 mg/L. Thirteen annual averages were computed, eight of which exceeded the site specific 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 site specific objective for nitrogen in the West Walker River, as referenced in the Lahontan Basin Plan table 3-15, is an annual average not to exceed 0.01 mg/L.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended)

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Temporal Representation:

Data were collected in predominantly quarterly fashion between October 2010 and July 2015 at 631WWK001. Data were collected at the other three on a predominately monthly basis 2012.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Data were collected in accordance with the SWAMP QAPP.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 79187, Phosphorus	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

96573

Pollutant:

Phosphorus

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

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 three to four times a year sampling resulting in three annual averages. The phosphorus concentrations in the samples ranged between 0.02 mg/L and 0.04 mg/L and all of the annual average values exceeded the 0.01 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 data collected at the West Walker River at Topaz Lane site is found in Table 3-15 in the Lahontan Basin Plan for Topaz Lake and is an annual average value of 0.01 mg/L (West Walker River at Coleville).

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 Walker River at Topaz Lane site 21NEV1_WQX-NV09-302-WF-001

Temporal Representation:

Data were collected three to four times a year between 2011 and 2013.

Environmental Conditions:

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 that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 79187, Phosphorus	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

4929

Pollutant:

Phosphorus

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

The U.S. Geological Survey sampled phosphorus under the Region 6 SWAMP program between 2002 and 2005. The total phosphorus concentration in 12 samples ranged from 0.022 to 1.41 mg/L. The highest value was from an August 2004 sample and probably reflects stormwater quality from a severe thunderstorm event. The annual average objective was exceeded in 4 of 4 years.

Data Reference:

2007. SWAMP Data for the West Walker River and East Walker River Hydrologic Units

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

The site specific objective includes an annual average Total Phosphorus concentration of 0.01 mg/L and a 90th percentile value of 0.02 mg/L (Lahontan Basin Plan Table 3-15).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended)

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

One station, West Walker River near Coleville, was sampled.

Temporal Representation:

12 samples were collected between 2002 and 2005. Four annual average calculations were done.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Sampling and analysis were done according to the SWAMP QAPP. However, in July 2009 an error was discovered in the QAPP related to holding times for total phosphorus samples that affects the validity of data for the Lahontan Region The holding time for samples that are not acid-preserved.should be 48 hours rather than 28 days as indicated in the QAPP. "Low level" phosphorus analyses, without acid preservation, are used in the Lahontan Region's SWAMP program. .

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 79187, Phosphorus	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

96706

Pollutant:

Phosphorus

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data were collected by Lahontan field staff collecting data for the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Perennial Stream Surveys. Data were collected on two days, in August 2012 and July 2014 respectively. The raw data concentrations were 0.0163 and 0.0062 mg/L. Two annual averages were computed, one of which exceeded the site specific objective in 2014, although each of these annual averages were based on one data point only.

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 Walker River, as referenced in the Lahontan Basin Plan table 3-15, is an annual average not to exceed 0.01 mg/L.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended)

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Temporal Representation:

Data were collected on two days, one in August 2012 and one in July 2014 respectively.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Data were collected in accordance with the SWAMP QAPP.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program


DECISION ID	78975	Region 6
West Walker River

Pollutant:	Total Dissolved Solids
Final Listing Decision:	List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Revised
Sources:	A Source Unknown
Expected TMDL Completion Date:	2031
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. Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 12 of 14 samples exceed the objective COLD beneficial use; Zero of 12 samples exceed the criteria for MUN beneficial use 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 to place 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. 12 of 14 samples exceeded the objective for COLD beneficial use; 0 of 12 samples exceed the criteria for MUN beneficial use. Based on the assessment of data against the COLD beneficial use there is sufficient evidence to place this waterbody segment on the list of impaired waters. 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:

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 78975, Total Dissolved Solids	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

4934

Pollutant:

Total Dissolved Solids

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

The U.S. Geological Survey sampled TDS under the Region 6 SWAMP program between 2002 and 2005. TDS concentrations in 12 quarterly samples ranged from 27 to 109 mg/L. The MCL was not violated..

Data Reference:

2007. SWAMP Data for the West Walker River and East Walker River Hydrologic Units

SWAMP Data:

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 total dissolved solids (TDS) is 500 mg/L.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended)

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

One station, West Walker River near Coleville, was sampled.

Temporal Representation:

Twelve quarterly samples were collected between 2002 and 2005.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Data meet the quality assurance requirements of the SWAMP QAPP.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 78975, Total Dissolved Solids	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

4933

Pollutant:

Total Dissolved Solids

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

The U.S. Geological Survey sampled TDS under the Region 6 SWAMP program between 2002 and 2005. TDS concentrations in 12 samples analyzed as "residue" ranged from 27 to 109 mg/L. The annual average objective was violated in 2 of 4 years. An additional sample analyzed as "nonfilterable" TDS was below the detection level.

Data Reference:

2007. SWAMP Data for the West Walker River and East Walker River Hydrologic Units

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

The site-specific objective for total dissolved solids (TDS) iincludes an annual average of 60 mg/L and a 90th percentile value of 75 mg/L (Lahontan Basin Plan Table 3-15).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended)

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

One station, West Walker River near Coleville, was sampled.

Temporal Representation:

Twelve quarterly samples analyzed as "residue" were collected between 2002 and 2005. Four annual average calculations were done. An additional single sample collected in May 2004 was analyzed as "nonfilterable."

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Data meet the quality assurance requirements of the SWAMP QAPP.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 78975, Total Dissolved Solids	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

32226

Pollutant:

Total Dissolved Solids

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

The annual average for TDS for this data set was 116.96 which exceeds the Water Quality Objective.

Data Reference:

RWB6 Trend Monitoring CY2006 CY2007

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

The site-pecific objective for Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) in Lahontan Basin Plan Table 3-15, includes an annual average of 60 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 the following station: 631WWK001 (West Walker RIver, at Coleville).

Temporal Representation:

Samples were collected between 8/8/2007 - 12/26/2007.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

2002 QAMP (Quality Assurance Management Plan) for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 78975, Total Dissolved Solids	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

96574

Pollutant:

Total Dissolved Solids

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

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 three to four times a year sampling resulting in three annual averages. The Total Dissolved Solids concentration in those samples ranged between 45 mg/L and 123 mg/L and three of the three annual averages exceeded the 90 mg/L objective for Total Dissolved Solids. (2011-84 mg/L; 2012 - 92 mg/L; 2013 - 100 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 Dissolved Solids for the data collected at the West Walker River at Topaz Lane site is in Table 3-15 in the Lahontan Basin Plan for West Walker River at Coleville and is an annual average value of 60 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 Walker River at Topaz Lane site 21NEV1_WQX-NV09-302-WF-001

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected three to four times a year during 2011-2013.

Environmental Conditions:

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 that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 78975, Total Dissolved Solids	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

96702

Pollutant:

Total Dissolved Solids

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

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 between October 2010 and October 2015. Raw data concentrations ranged from 28 to 139 mg/L. Six annual averages were computed, all of which exceeded the site specific 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 site specific objective for total dissolved solids in the West Walker River, as referenced in the Lahontan Basin Plan table 3-15, is an annual average not to exceed 60 mg/L.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended)

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Data were collected from one sites, 631WWK001, which is located south of the town of Walker downstream of the confluence with Rock Creek.

Temporal Representation:

Data were collected in predominantly quarterly fashion between October 2010 and October 2015 at 631WWK001.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Data were collected in accordance with the SWAMP QAPP.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program


DECISION ID	71718	Region 6
West Walker River

Pollutant:	Turbidity
Final Listing Decision:	List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Revised
Sources:	A Source Unknown
Expected TMDL Completion Date:	2031
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board 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. Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant, Two for the COLD beneficial use and five for the MUN beneficial use. 0 of 12 samples exceed the objective for the COLD beneficial use; 11 of 46 samples exceed the objective for the MUN beneficial use. This decision is based on information assessed for the MUN beneficial use. 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. 11 of 46 samples exceed the objective for the MUN beneficial use 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:

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 71718, Turbidity	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

99038

Pollutant:

Turbidity

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed STORET data for West Walker River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 1 of 6 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Turbidity.

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:

Water designated as MUN shall not contain concentrations of chemical constituents in excess of the maximum contaminant level (MCL) or secondary maximum contaminant level (SMCL) based upon drinking water standards specified in Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations. The Lahontan Basin Plan also has regionwide turbidity objective for other beneficial uses that states: Waters shall be free of changes in turbidity that cause nuisance or adversely affect the water for beneficial uses. Increases in turbidity shall not exceed natural levels by more than 10%.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended)

Evaluation Guideline:

California Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) apply to ambient surface waters under the Lahontan Basin Plan's \Chemical Constituents\" objective. The Secondary MCL for turbidity is 5 NTU. Calculation of a numeric objective for other beneficial uses requires comparison with upstream or other background data which may not be available as part of the data used for water quality assessment. "

Guideline Reference:

California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 4, Chapter 15. Domestic Water Quality and Monitoring

Spatial Representation:

The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site(s) (21NEV1_WQX-NV09-302-WF-001)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2011-03-09 and 2012-08-07

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

QAPP not required for federal data

QAPP Information Reference(s):

This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 71718, Turbidity	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

97727

Pollutant:

Turbidity

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

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:

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 2 monitoring site(s) (631PS0081, 631PS0145)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2012-08-28 and 2014-07-02

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 71718, Turbidity	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

4936

Pollutant:

Turbidity

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

The U.S. Geological Survey measured turbidity quarterly under the Region 6 SWAMP program between 2002 and 2004. Eight laboratory turbidity samples reported as NTU ranged from 2 to 500 units. The latter value, from a sample collected August 20, 2004, was probably the result of an intense summer thunderstorm. The next highest turbidity measurement was 17 NTU.

Data Reference:

2007. SWAMP Data for the West Walker River and East Walker River Hydrologic Units

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

The regionwide turbidity objective in the Lahontan Basin Plan states: "Waters shall be free of changes in turbidity that cause nuisance or adversely affect the water for beneficial uses. Increases in turbidity shall not exceed natural levels by more than 10 percent."

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended)

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

One station, West Walker River near Coleville, was sampled.

Temporal Representation:

Eight quarterly turbidity measurements reported as NTU were collected between 2002 and 2004.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Data meet the quality assurance requirements of the SWAMP QAPP.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 71718, Turbidity	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

7750

Pollutant:

Turbidity

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

The U.S. Geological Survey measured turbidity quarterly under the Region 6 SWAMP program in 2004 and 2005. Two of four turbidity measurements reported as NTRU were below the detection level; the remaining two turbidity values were 2.6 and 54 NTRU.

Data Reference:

2007. SWAMP Data for the West Walker River and East Walker River Hydrologic Units

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended)

Objective/Criterion Reference:

2007. SWAMP Data for the West Walker River and East Walker River Hydrologic Units

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

One station, West Walker River near Coleville, was sampled.

Temporal Representation:

Four turbidity measurements reported as NTRU were taken quarterly in 2004 and 2005.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Data meet the quality assurance requirements of the SWAMP QAPP.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 71718, Turbidity	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

97073

Pollutant:

Turbidity

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB6 Monitoring data for West Walker River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 6 of 26 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Turbidity.

Data Reference:

Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for the SWAMP RWB6 Monitoring (tissue and water).

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

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) (631WWK001)

Temporal Representation:

The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-09-13 and 2015-10-15

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 71718, Turbidity	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

4937

Pollutant:

Turbidity

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

The U.S. Geological Survey measured turbidity quarterly under the Region 6 SWAMP program between 2002 and 2004. Eight laboratory turbidity samples reported as NTU ranged from 2 to 500 units. The latter value, from a sample collected in August 2004, was probably the result of an intense summer thunderstorm. Of the eight samples reported as NTU, four exceeded the MCL.

Data Reference:

2007. SWAMP Data for the West Walker River and East Walker River Hydrologic Units

SWAMP Data:

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 turbidity is 5 NTU.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended)

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

One station, West Walker River near Coleville, was sampled.

Temporal Representation:

Eight quarterly turbidity measurements reported as NTU were taken between 2002 and 2004.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Data meet the quality assurance requirements of the SWAMP QAPP.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 71718, Turbidity	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

7751

Pollutant:

Turbidity

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

The U.S. Geological Survey measured turbidity quarterly under the Region 6 SWAMP program in 2004 and 2005. Turbidity values in four samples reported as NTRU included two samples below the detection level, and two samples with values of 2.6 and 54 units.

Data Reference:

2007. SWAMP Data for the West Walker River and East Walker River Hydrologic Units

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

There are no California or federal standards or criteria for turbidity expressed as NTRU. (The California Maximum Contaminant Level is 5 NTU.)

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended)

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

One station, West Walker River near Coleville, was sampled.

Temporal Representation:

Four quarterly turbidity measurements reported as NTRU were taken in 2004 and 2005..

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Data meet the quality assurance requirements of the SWAMP QAPP.

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	76318	Region 6
West Walker River

Pollutant:	Sedimentation/Siltation
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	Regional Board Conclusion: This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303 (d) list in a previous listing cycle. No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows: The West Walker River was delisted in 2006, based on State Water Board staff findings that the original listing basis was faulty due to lack of data and the fact that the original listing was in error (incorrect identification of water body). The actual issue was the failure of an irrigation diversion to Topaz Lake off the mainstem West Walker River, not the West Walker River itself. However, as a result of the 1997 flood, a significant segment of the irrigation diversion from the West Walker River to Topaz Lake (Topaz Lake diversion) was aggraded with sediment. This sediment has since been removed and the issue has been resolved. For the 2008 Integrated Report, Lahontan Water Board staff assessed suspended sediment data collected at a station on the river. The Lahontan Basin Plan's narrative water quality objective is an antidegradation based objective that provides that there shall be no increases in suspended sediment concentrations or loads. This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.10 of the Listing Policy, which deals with trends in water quality. One line of evidence, based on quarterly sampling, is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. It includes 12 suspended sediment concentration values and 12 suspended sediment load values calculated from instantaneous discharge measurements. Suspended sediment concentrations and loads are dependent on flows and can change rapidly over a short time during storm or snowmelt runoff events. Quarterly samples are insufficient to capture these short term events and therefore are insufficient to define natural background suspended sediment concentrations and loads, or to detect trends. Listing Policy Section 3.10 requires that natural background conditions be established. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfy the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used do not satisfy the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5. Quarterly samples do not capture the seasonal and annual variability expected in streamflows and constituent concentrations in streams of the Lahontan Region. 3. Sampling frequency was insufficient to establish natural background conditions and therefore does not meet the requirements of Listing Policy section 3.10. 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:	This region was not assessed this cycle. All decisions have been carried over from the previous cycle and remain the same.

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.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 76318, Sedimentation/Siltation	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

2859

Pollutant:

Sedimentation/Siltation

LOE Subgroup:

Testimonial Evidence

Matrix:

Not Specified

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Not Specified

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

This listing was based on best professional judgment after staff observed turbid water in an irrigation channel that diverts water from the mainstem West Walker River into Topaz Lake. No data or other information was provided. The irrigation channel was mistakenly identified as the West Walker River, resulting in its listing (in error) for sedimentation as well. The West Walker River remained on the list following the extreme flood event of 1997, due to concerns over potential impacts from flooding.

The original listing was in error (incorrect identification of water body). The actual issue was the failure of an irrigation diversion to Topaz Lake off the mainstem West Walker River, not the West Walker River itself. However, as a result of the 1997 flood, a significant segment of the irrigation diversion from the West Walker River to Topaz Lake (Topaz Lake diversion) was aggraded with sediment. The Walker River Irrigation District applied for and received permits and certifications to remove the sediment and restore the capacity of the diversion channel. The work was completed in late 2000 in accordance with the permit conditions. The sediment concerns in the Topaz Lake diversion have been resolved, and Regional Board staff is not aware of evidence to indicate current water quality standards exceedances or beneficial use impacts.

Data Reference:

Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Temporal Representation:

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

QA Info Missing

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 76318, Sedimentation/Siltation	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

4931

Pollutant:

Sediment

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

The U.S. Geological Survey sampled the West Walker River under the Region 6 SWAMP program between 2002 and 2005. Suspended sediment concentrations in 12 samples ranged from 2 to 790 mg/L. Concurrent measurements of "instantaneous discharge" ranged from 25 to 1730 cubic feet per second. Calculated sediment loads ranged from 0.2 to 2090 tons/day. .

Data Reference:

2007. SWAMP Data for the West Walker River and East Walker River Hydrologic Units

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

The Lahontan Basin Plan's narrative objective for suspended sediment states: "The suspended sediment load and suspended sediment discharge rate of surface waters shall not be altered in such a manner as to cause nuisance or adversely affect the water for beneficial uses."

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended)

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

One station, West Walker River near Coleville, was sampled.

Temporal Representation:

Twelve quarterly suspended sediment samples were collected between 2002 and 2005. Twelve load calculations were done.

Environmental Conditions:

The West Walker River is an interstate river, influenced by geothermal springs, and agricultural and highway drainage. The watershed was affected by severe flooding in 1997 and wildfire in 2002. The headwaters are near the Sierra Nevada crest; Coleville is in an area transitional to Great Basin environmental conditions. In addition to the Cold Freshwater Habitat beneficial use, the West Walker River is designated for the Spawning, Reproduction and Development use.

QAPP Information:

Data meet the quality assurance requirements of the SWAMP QAPP.

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	70785	Region 6
West Walker River

Pollutant:	Temperature, water
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
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. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. One of the samples exceed the water quality objective. LOE ID # 4935 has a narrative objective whereas LOE ID # 44137 uses a numeric objective. Although this waterbody will not be listed, it may be difficult to evaluate it in the future since different objectives were used to determine impairment and we are uncertain of the ambient temperature or seasonality. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. One of 18 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 Decision Recommendation:	This region was not assessed this cycle. All decisions have been carried over from the previous cycle and remain the same.

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.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 70785, Temperature, water	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

4935

Pollutant:

Temperature, water

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

The U.S. Geological Survey measured temperature quarterly under the Region 6 SWAMP program between 2002 and 2005. Twelve water temperature measurements ranged from 1.5 to 18.5 degrees Celsius. Sampling frequency was not sufficient to determine the natural temperature range or to detect whether changes have occurred.

Data Reference:

2007. SWAMP Data for the West Walker River and East Walker River Hydrologic Units

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

The temperature objective in the Lahontan Basin Plan states: "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.

Temperature objectives for COLD interstate waters and WARM interstate waters are as specified in the 'Water Quality Control Plan for Control of Temperature in The Coastal and Interstate Waters and Enclosed Bays and Estuaries of California' including any revisions."

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended)

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

One station, West Walker River near Coleville, was sampled.

Temporal Representation:

Twelve quarterly temperature measurements were taken between 2002 and 2005.

Environmental Conditions:

The West Walker River is an interstate river, influenced by geothermal springs, and agricultural and highway drainage. Severe streambank erosion occurred during the January 1997 flood. The watershed was affected by wildfire in 2002. The headwaters near Sierra Nevada crest; Coleville is in an area transitional to Great Basin environmental conditions. In addition to the Cold Freshwater Habitat beneficial use, the West Walker River is designated for the Spawning, Reproduction and Development use.

QAPP Information:

Data meet the quality assurance requirements of the SWAMP QAPP.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 70785, Temperature, water	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

44137

Pollutant:

Temperature, water

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for West Walker River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 1 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Water Temperature.

Data Reference:

RWB6 Trend Monitoring CY2006 CY2007

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

The Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region's water quality objective for all surface waters states the following: 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 COLD, the temperature shall not be altered.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended)

Evaluation Guideline:

Inland Fishes of California (Moyle 1976) states that for rainbow trout the optimum range for growth and completion of most life stages is 13-21 degrees C (page 129).

Guideline Reference:

Fish introductions in CA: History and impact on native fishes. Davis, CA: University of CA, Davis

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for West Walker River was collected at 1 monitoring site [ West Walker River, at Coleville]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected over the time period 8/8/2007-12/26/2007.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

2002 QAMP (Quality Assurance Management Plan) for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)


DECISION ID	72550	Region 6
West Walker River

Pollutant:	Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN)
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	Regional Board Conclusion: This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303 (d) list in a previous listing cycle. No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows: This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. No biological data are available for assessment of compliance with the water quality objective for biostimulatory substances. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfy the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used do not satisfy the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. Quarterly samples do not capture the seasonal and annual variability expected in streamflows and constituent concentrations in streams of the Lahontan Region. 3. There are no biological data available to assess whether the chemical samples exceeded the water quality objective. The data cannot be assessed using 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 Decision Recommendation:	This region was not assessed this cycle. All decisions have been carried over from the previous cycle and remain the same.

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.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 72550, Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN)	Region 6
West Walker River

LOE ID:

7776

Pollutant:

Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

The U.S. Geological Survey sampled TKN under the Region 6 SWAMP program between 2002 and 2005. The TKN concentration in 12 samples ranged from 0.05 to 1.5 mg/L. The highest value was from an August 2004 sample and probably reflects stormwater quality from a severe thunderstorm event.

Data Reference:

2007. SWAMP Data for the West Walker River and East Walker River Hydrologic Units

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

There is no site-specific objective for Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) for the West Walker River. The Lahontan Basin Plan's objective for biostimulatory substances state : "Waters shall not contain biostimulatory substances in concentrations that promote aquatic growths to the extent that such growths cause nuisance or adversely affect the water for beneficial uses."

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended)

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

One station, West Walker River near Coleville, was sampled.

Temporal Representation:

Twelve quarterly samples were collected between 2002 and 2005.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Data meet the quality assurance requirements of the SWAMP QAPP.

QAPP Information Reference(s):