Water Body Name: | Bear Creek (Placer County) |
Water Body ID: | CAR6352001019980803153420 |
Water Body Type: | River & Stream |
DECISION ID |
100942 |
Region 6 |
Bear Creek (Placer County) |
||
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.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of the 6 samples exceed the guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 0 of 6 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: | 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: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 98182 | ||||
Pollutant: | Alkalinity as CaCO3 | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB6 Monitoring data for Bear Creek (Placer County) 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 Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for the SWAMP RWB6 Monitoring (tissue and water). | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The National Recommended Water Quality Criteria for Alkalinity as CaCO3 for the protection of freshwater aquatic life is not less than 20000 ug/L. (National Recommended Water Quality Criteria 2016) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Current as of 08/03/2016. | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site(s) (635BER001) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2014-09-23 and 2015-12-09 | ||||
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 |
103273 |
Region 6 |
Bear Creek (Placer County) |
||
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. Zero of eight samples exceed the criteria for ammonia. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3 .Zero of eight 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. 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: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 97378 | ||||
Pollutant: | Nitrogen, ammonia (Total Ammonia) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 8 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Truckee River Watershed Council data for Bear Creek (Placer County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 8 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Ammonia as N. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for the Truckee River Watershed Council. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Total Ammonia criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 30-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is Temperature and pH dependent, and was calculated according to the formula listed in the Aquatic Life Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Ammonia - Freshwater 2013 document. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Aquatic Life Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Ammonia - Freshwater 2013 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site(s) (MTRBEAR00) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2011-05-14 and 2016-09-22 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) for Truckee River Monitoring Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) for Truckee River Monitoring Plan. | ||||
DECISION ID |
100943 |
Region 6 |
Bear Creek (Placer County) |
||
Pollutant: | Chloride |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of the 2 samples exceed the site specific objective for chloride. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 0 of 2 samples exceeded the site specific 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. 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: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 96234 | ||||
Pollutant: | Chloride | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | A total of 6 discrete chloride samples were collected by Lahontan SWAMP staff between September 2014 and December 2015. Chloride concentrations ranged from 0.78 to 2.02 mg/L. Applying the mean of monthly means for the period of record, two sample averages can be computed. Neither of the two mean samples exceeded the site specific water quality 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 chloride in Bear Creek (Placer County) as referenced in the Lahontan Basin Plan table 3-11, states that the mean of monthly means shall not exceed 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 635BER001, which is located at the downstream end of Bear Creek directly above the confluence with the Truckee River. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data were collected six times between September 2014 and December 2015. In 2014 samples were collected in September and October, and quarterly in 2015. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Bear Creek drains Alpine Meadows watershed, found to the north-west of Lake Tahoe. The creek is potentially impacted from ski resort operations at Alpine Meadows ski area, as well as from several neighborhoods located upstream in the drainage. | ||||
QAPP Information: | Data were collected in accordance with the 2008 SWAMP QAPP, amended in 2013. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
DECISION ID |
100944 |
Region 6 |
Bear Creek (Placer County) |
||
Pollutant: | Fluoride |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of the 6 samples exceed the guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 0 of 6 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: | 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: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 97222 | ||||
Pollutant: | Fluoride | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB6 Monitoring data for Bear Creek (Placer County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 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) (635BER001) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2014-09-23 and 2015-12-09 | ||||
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 |
100952 |
Region 6 |
Bear Creek (Placer County) |
||
Pollutant: | Indicator Bacteria |
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.
Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of six samples exceed the REC-1 geomean bacteria objective for E.coli, zero of nine samples exceed the REC-1 STV bacteria objective for E.coli, zero of 26 samples exceed the Basin Plan fecal coliform log mean objective and zero of twelve samples exceed the fecal coliform 10 percent exceedance objective for bacteria. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of six samples exceed the REC-1 geomean bacteria objective for E.coli, zero of nine samples exceed the REC-1 STV bacteria objective for E.coli, zero of 26 samples exceed the Basin Plan fecal coliform log mean objective and zero of twelve samples exceed the fecal coliform 10 percent exceedance objective for bacteria 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: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 129436 | ||||
Pollutant: | Fecal Coliform | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PATHOGEN MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Truckee River Watershed Council data for Bear Creek (Placer County) to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 6 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 Truckee River Watershed Council. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-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): MTRBEAR00 | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the days of 2011-05-14 and 2016-05-14 . | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) for Truckee River Monitoring Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) for Truckee River Monitoring Plan. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 129389 | ||||
Pollutant: | Fecal Coliform | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 10 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PATHOGEN MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB6 Monitoring data for Bear Creek (Placer County) to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 10 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Coliform, Fecal. The water quality standard is based on a 10% exceedance rate that is calculated monthly. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for the SWAMP RWB6 Monitoring (tissue and water). | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Waters shall not contain concentrations of coliform organisms attributable to anthropogenic sources, including human and livestock wastes. The fecal coliform concentration during any 30-day period shall not exceed a log mean of 20/100 ml, nor shall more than 10 percent of all samples collected during any 30-day period exceed 40/100 ml. (Lahontan Region Basin Plan) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site(s), station(s): 635BER001 | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the days of 2013-08-05 and 2015-09-16 . | ||||
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 | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 129172 | ||||
Pollutant: | Fecal Coliform | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PATHOGEN MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Truckee River Watershed Council data for Bear Creek (Placer County) to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 6 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 Truckee River Watershed Council. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Waters shall not contain concentrations of coliform organisms attributable to anthropogenic sources, including human and livestock wastes. The fecal coliform concentration during any 30-day period shall not exceed a log mean of 20/100 ml, nor shall more than 10 percent of all samples collected during any 30-day period exceed 40/100 ml. (Lahontan Region Basin Plan) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site(s), station(s): MTRBEAR00 | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the days of 2011-05-14 and 2016-05-14 . | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) for Truckee River Monitoring Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) for Truckee River Monitoring Plan. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 99853 | ||||
Pollutant: | Escherichia coli (E. coli) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Water Contact Recreation | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PATHOGEN MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB6 Monitoring data for Bear Creek (Placer County) to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 6 samples exceeded the geomean water quality standard for E. coli. This is a six week rolling geomean that is calculated weekly. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for the SWAMP RWB6 Monitoring (tissue and water). | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The bacteria water quality objective applicable to all waters, except Lake Tahoe, where the salinity is less than 10 parts per thousand (ppth) 95 percent or more of the time is a six-week rolling GEOMETRIC MEAN (GM) of Escherichia coli (E. coli) not to exceed 100 colony forming units per 100 milliliters (cfu/100 mL) (calculated weekly). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays, and Estuaries Plan. Part 1: Trash Provisions; Part 2: Tribal Subsistence Beneficial Uses and Mercury Provisions; Part 3: Bacteria Provisions and Variance Policy | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site(s), station(s): 635BER001 | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the days of 2013-08-05 and 2015-09-16 . | ||||
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 | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 99848 | ||||
Pollutant: | Escherichia coli (E. coli) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Water Contact Recreation | ||||
Number of Samples: | 9 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PATHOGEN MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB6 Monitoring data for Bear Creek (Placer County) to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 9 samples exceeded the Statistical Threshold Value (STV) water quality standard for E. coli. The STV is based on a 10% exceedance rate that is calculated monthly. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for the SWAMP RWB6 Monitoring (tissue and water). | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The bacteria water quality objective applicable to all waters, except Lake Tahoe, where the salinity is less than 10 parts per thousand (ppth) 95 percent or more of the time is a STATISTICAL THRESHOLD VALUE (STV) of 320 cfu/100 mL not to be exceeded more than 10 percent of the time (calculated monthly). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays, and Estuaries Plan. Part 1: Trash Provisions; Part 2: Tribal Subsistence Beneficial Uses and Mercury Provisions; Part 3: Bacteria Provisions and Variance Policy | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site(s), station(s): 635BER001 | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the days of 2013-08-05 and 2015-09-16 . | ||||
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 | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 129125 | ||||
Pollutant: | Fecal Coliform | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 16 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PATHOGEN MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB6 Monitoring data for Bear Creek (Placer County) to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 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 the SWAMP RWB6 Monitoring (tissue and water). | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Waters shall not contain concentrations of coliform organisms attributable to anthropogenic sources, including human and livestock wastes. The fecal coliform concentration during any 30-day period shall not exceed a log mean of 20/100 ml. (Lahontan Region Basin Plan) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site(s), station(s): 635BER001 | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the days of 2013-08-05 and 2015-09-16 . | ||||
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 |
100960 |
Region 6 |
Bear Creek (Placer County) |
||
Pollutant: | Nitrate/Nitrite (Nitrite + Nitrate as N) |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board 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 15 samples exceed the guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List 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 15 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: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 98536 | ||||
Pollutant: | Nitrate/Nitrite (Nitrite + Nitrate as N) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB6 Monitoring data for Bear Creek (Placer County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Nitrate + Nitrite as N. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for the SWAMP RWB6 Monitoring (tissue and water). | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The California Maximum Contaminant Level for nitrate + nitrite (as N) that is incorporated by reference in the Water Quality Control Plan, Lahontan Region is 10.0 mg/L (Water Quality Control Plan, Lahontan Region). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site(s) (635BER001) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2014-09-23 and 2015-12-09 | ||||
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 | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 97421 | ||||
Pollutant: | Nitrate/Nitrite (Nitrite + Nitrate as N) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 9 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Truckee River Watershed Council data for Bear Creek (Placer County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 9 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 Truckee River Watershed Council. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The California Maximum Contaminant Level for nitrate + nitrite (as N) that is incorporated by reference in the Water Quality Control Plan, Lahontan Region is 10.0 mg/L (Water Quality Control Plan, Lahontan Region). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site(s) (MTRBEAR00) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2011-05-14 and 2016-09-22 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) for Truckee River Monitoring Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) for Truckee River Monitoring Plan. | ||||
DECISION ID |
100959 |
Region 6 |
Bear Creek (Placer County) |
||
Pollutant: | Nitrogen |
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.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of the 2 samples exceed the site specific objective for Total Nitrogen. 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 site specific 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. 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: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 96235 | ||||
Pollutant: | Total Nitrogen as N | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | A total of 6 discrete total nitrogen (TN) samples were collected by Lahontan SWAMP staff between September 2014 and December 2015. TN concentrations ranged from 0.0256 to 0.846 mg/L. Applying the mean of monthly means for the period of record, two sample averages can be computed. Neither of the two mean samples exceeded the site specific water quality 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 nitrogen in Bear Creek (Placer County) as referenced in the Lahontan Basin Plan table 3-11, states that the mean of monthly means shall not exceed 0.15 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 635BER001, which is located at the downstream end of Bear Creek directly above the confluence with the Truckee River. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data were collected six times between September 2014 and December 2015. In 2014 samples were collected in September and October, and quarterly in 2015. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Bear Creek drains Alpine Meadows watershed, found to the north-west of Lake Tahoe. The creek is potentially impacted from ski resort operations at Alpine Meadows ski area, as well as from several neighborhoods located upstream in the drainage. | ||||
QAPP Information: | Data were collected in accordance with the 2008 SWAMP QAPrP, amended in 2013. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
DECISION ID |
100945 |
Region 6 |
Bear Creek (Placer County) |
||
Pollutant: | Oxygen, Dissolved |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of the 24 samples exceed the objective for dissolved oxygen. 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 24 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. 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: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 130123 | ||||
Pollutant: | Oxygen, Dissolved | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 24 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Truckee River Watershed Council data for Bear Creek (Placer County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 24 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 Truckee River Watershed Council. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | For waters with the beneficial uses of COLD, COLD with SPWN, WARM, and WARM with SPWN, the minimum dissolved oxygen concentration shall not be less than that specified in Table 3-6. (Water Quality Control Plan, Lahontan Region) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site(s) (MTRBEAR00) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-09-25 and 2016-09-22 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) for Truckee River Monitoring Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) for Truckee River Monitoring Plan. | ||||
DECISION ID |
100946 |
Region 6 |
Bear Creek (Placer County) |
||
Pollutant: | Phosphorus |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 1 of the 8 samples exceed the site specific objective for phosphorus. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 1 of 8 samples exceeded the site specific 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. 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: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 96767 | ||||
Pollutant: | Phosphorus | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | A total of 6 discrete phosphorous samples were collected by the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) between September 2014 and December 2015. Phosphorous concentrations ranged from non-detect to 0.0078 mg/L. Applying the mean of monthly means for the period of record, 2 averaged samples can be computed. Neither of the 2 averaged samples exceed the water quality 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 phosphorous in Bear Creek (Placer County) as referenced in the Lahontan Basin Plan table 3-11, states that the mean of monthly means for phosphorous shall not exceed 0.02 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 635BER001, which is located at the downstream end of Bear Creek directly above the confluence with the Truckee River. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data were collected six times between September 2014 and December 2015. Data were collected predominantly once per quarter. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Bear Creek drains Alpine Meadows watershed, found to the north-west of Lake Tahoe. The creek is potentially impacted from ski resort operations at Alpine Meadows ski area, as well as from several neighborhoods located upstream in the drainage. | ||||
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 | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 96239 | ||||
Pollutant: | Phosphorus | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | A total of 9 discrete phosphorous samples were collected by the Truckee River Watershed Council between May 2011 and September 2016. Phosphorous concentrations ranged from 0.0016 to 0.022 mg/L. Applying the mean of monthly means for the period of record, 6 sample averages can be computed. 1 of 6 averaged samples exceed the water quality objective. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for the Truckee River Watershed Council. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The site-specific objective for phosphorous in Bear Creek (Placer County) as referenced in the Lahontan Basin Plan table 3-11, states that the mean of monthly means for phosphorous shall not exceed 0.02 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 MTRBEAR00, which is located in the middle watershed, downstream of the bridge on Alpine Meadows road. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data were collected nine times between May 2011 and September 2016. Between 2011 and May 2014, data were collected once per year. Starting in May 2014, data were collected twice per year, predominately in spring and fall. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Bear Creek drains Alpine Meadows watershed, found to the north-west of Lake Tahoe. The creek is potentially impacted from ski resort operations at Alpine Meadows ski area, as well as from several neighborhoods located upstream in the drainage. | ||||
QAPP Information: | Data were collected in accordance with the Truckee River Watershed Council QAPP. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) for Truckee River Monitoring Plan. | ||||
DECISION ID |
100947 |
Region 6 |
Bear Creek (Placer County) |
||
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 is necessary to assess listing status.
Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant, however they both are based on the same data set using different objectives for the two beneficial uses assessed. 0 of the 6 samples exceed the guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 0 of 6 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: | 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: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 98482 | ||||
Pollutant: | Sodium | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Agricultural Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB6 Monitoring data for Bear Creek (Placer County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Sodium. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for the SWAMP RWB6 Monitoring (tissue and water). | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Lahontan Region). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | Water Quality for Agriculture, published by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations in 1985, contains criteria protective of various agricultural uses of water, including irrigation of various types of crops and stock watering. At or below the sodium threshold of 69 mg/L, agricultural uses of water should not be limited. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Water Quality for Agriculture, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations - Irrigation and Drainage Paper No. 29, Rev 1, Rome (1985) | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site(s) (635BER001) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2014-09-23 and 2015-12-09 | ||||
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 | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 98197 | ||||
Pollutant: | Sodium | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB6 Monitoring data for Bear Creek (Placer County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Sodium. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for the SWAMP RWB6 Monitoring (tissue and water). | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Lahontan Region). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | Per the Drinking Water Standards and Health Advisories (USEPA 2012), the health advisory for sodium for individuals on a sodium-restricted diet is 20 mg/l. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | 2012 Edition of the Drinking Water Standards and Health Advisories | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site(s) (635BER001) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2014-09-23 and 2015-12-09 | ||||
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 |
103274 |
Region 6 |
Bear Creek (Placer County) |
||
Pollutant: | Specific Conductivity |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of six samples exceed the guideline for specific conductivity. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of one 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: | 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: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 97082 | ||||
Pollutant: | Specific Conductivity | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB6 Monitoring data for Bear Creek (Placer County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceeded the water quality standard for SpecificConductivity. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for the SWAMP RWB6 Monitoring (tissue and water). | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water designated as MUN shall not contain concentrations of chemical constituents in excess of the maximum contaminant level (MCL) or secondary maximum contaminant level (SMCL) based upon drinking water standards specified in Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations (Water Quality Control Plan, Lahontan Region). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | California Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) apply to ambient waters under the Lahontan Basin Plan's \Chemical Constituents\" objective. The California Secondary MCL for specific conductivity is 900 uS/cm." | ||||
Guideline Reference: | California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 4, Chapter 15. Domestic Water Quality and Monitoring | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site(s) (635BER001) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2014-09-23 and 2015-12-09 | ||||
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 |
100948 |
Region 6 |
Bear Creek (Placer County) |
||
Pollutant: | Sulfates |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 1 of the 2 samples exceed the site specific objective for sulfate. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 1 of 2 samples exceeded the site specific 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. 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: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 96237 | ||||
Pollutant: | Sulfates | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | A total of 6 discrete sulfate samples were collected by Lahontan SWAMP staff between September 2014 and December 2015. Sulfate concentrations ranged from 1.78 mg/L to 5 mg/L. Applying the mean of monthly means for the period of record, 2 averaged samples can be computed, one of which exceeds the water quality 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 sulfate in Bear Creek (Placer County) as referenced in the Lahontan Basin Plan table 3-11, states that the mean of monthly means for sulfates shall not exceed 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 station 635BER001, which is located at the downstream end of Bear Creek directly above the confluence with the Truckee River. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data were collected 6 times between September 2014 and December 2015, predominately on a per quarter basis. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Bear Creek drains Alpine Meadows watershed, found to the north-west of Lake Tahoe. The creek is potentially impacted from ski resort operations at Alpine Meadows ski area, as well as from several neighborhoods located upstream in the drainage. | ||||
QAPP Information: | Data were collected in accordance with the 2008 SWAMP QAPrP, amended in 2013. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
DECISION ID |
100957 |
Region 6 |
Bear Creek (Placer County) |
||
Pollutant: | Total Dissolved Solids |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 2 of the 2 samples exceed the site specific objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 2 of 2 samples exceeded the site specific 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. 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: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 96238 | ||||
Pollutant: | Total Dissolved Solids | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 2 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | A total of 5 discrete TDS samples were collected by Lahontan SWAMP staff between October 2014 and December 2015. TDS concentrations ranged from 58 mg/L to 82 mg/L. Applying the mean of monthly means for the period of record, 2 averaged samples can be computed, both of which exceed the water quality 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 (TDS) in Bear Creek (Placer County) as referenced in the Lahontan Basin Plan table 3-11, states that the mean of monthly means shall not exceed 65 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 635BER001, which is located at the downstream end of Bear Creek directly above the confluence with the Truckee River. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data were collected 5 times between October 2014 and December 2015, predominately on a per quarter basis. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Bear Creek drains Alpine Meadows watershed, found to the north-west of Lake Tahoe. The creek is potentially impacted from ski resort operations at Alpine Meadows ski area, as well as from several neighborhoods located upstream in the drainage. | ||||
QAPP Information: | Data were collected in accordance with the 2008 SWAMP QAPrP, amended in 2013. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
DECISION ID |
100958 |
Region 6 |
Bear Creek (Placer County) |
||
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: | 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.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 2 of the 6 samples exceed the site specific objective for TKN. 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. 2 of 6 samples exceeded the site specific 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. 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: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 96236 | ||||
Pollutant: | Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 2 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | A total of 9 discrete total kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) samples were collected by the Truckee River Watershed Council between May 2011 and September 2016. TKN concentrations ranged from 0.03 to 0.22 mg/L. Applying the mean of monthly means for the period of record, 6 sample averages can be computed. 2 of 6 averaged samples exceed the water quality objective. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for the Truckee River Watershed Council. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The site-specific objective for total nitrogen in Bear Creek (Placer County) as referenced in the Lahontan Basin Plan table 3-11, states that the mean of monthly means shall not exceed 0.1 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 MTRBEAR00, which is located in the middle watershed, downstream of the bridge on Alpine Meadows road. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data were collected nine times between May 2011 and September 2016. Between 2011 and May 2014, data were collected once per year. Starting in May 2014, data were collected twice per year, predominately in spring and fall. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Bear Creek drains Alpine Meadows watershed, found to the north-west of Lake Tahoe. The creek is potentially impacted from ski resort operations at Alpine Meadows ski area, as well as from several neighborhoods located upstream in the drainage. | ||||
QAPP Information: | Data were collected in accordance with the Truckee River Watershed Council QAPP. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) for Truckee River Monitoring Plan. | ||||
DECISION ID |
100951 |
Region 6 |
Bear Creek (Placer County) |
||
Pollutant: | Turbidity |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of the 9 samples exceed the site specific objective for turbidity. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 0 of 9 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. 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: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 97426 | ||||
Pollutant: | Turbidity | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 7 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Truckee River Watershed Council data for Bear Creek (Placer County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 7 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Turbidity. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for the Truckee River Watershed Council. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The objective for turbidity in Bear Creek, as stipulated in the Lahontan Basin Plan Chapter 3-8, is a mean of monthly mean value not to exceed 3 Nephelometric Turbidity Units (NTU). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 4, Chapter 15. Domestic Water Quality and Monitoring | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site(s) (MTRBEAR00) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-09-25 and 2016-09-22 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) for Truckee River Monitoring Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) for Truckee River Monitoring Plan. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 98568 | ||||
Pollutant: | Turbidity | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB6 Monitoring data for Bear Creek (Placer County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 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: | The objective for turbidity in Bear Creek, as stipulated in the Lahontan Basin Plan Chapter 3-8, is a mean of monthly mean value not to exceed 3 Nephelometric Turbidity Units (NTU). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 4, Chapter 15. Domestic Water Quality and Monitoring | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site(s) (635BER001) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2014-09-23 and 2015-12-09 | ||||
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 |
100961 |
Region 6 |
Bear Creek (Placer County) |
||
Pollutant: | pH |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant, however there is no background data for pH to assess these data so the sample and exceedance counts are both zero. 0 of the 0 samples exceed the objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 0 of 0 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. 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: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 129782 | ||||
Pollutant: | pH | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | 0 of 0 samples exceeded the water quality standard for pH. Although pH data does exist for this waterbody, the objective for this pollutant requires background information that is currently unavailable, and therefore an assessment of water quality standards could not be made. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for the Truckee River Watershed Council. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Lahontan Basin Plan's regionwide objective for pH states: \In fresh waters with designated beneficial uses of COLD or WARM, changes in normal ambient pH levels shall not exceed 0.5 pH units. For all other waters of the region, the pH shall not be depressed below 6.5 nor raised above 8.5 units. The Regional Board recognizes that some waters of the Region may have natural pH levels outside of the 6.5 to 8.5 range. Compliance with the pH objective for these waters will be determined on a case-by-case basis.\"" | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site(s) (MTRBEAR00) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-09-25 and 2016-09-22 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) for Truckee River Monitoring Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) for Truckee River Monitoring Plan. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 129541 | ||||
Pollutant: | pH | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | 0 of 0 samples exceeded the water quality standard for pH. Although pH data does exist for this waterbody, the objective for this pollutant requires background information that is currently unavailable, and therefore an assessment of water quality standards could not be made. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for the SWAMP RWB6 Monitoring (tissue and water). | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Lahontan Basin Plan's regionwide objective for pH states: \In fresh waters with designated beneficial uses of COLD or WARM, changes in normal ambient pH levels shall not exceed 0.5 pH units. For all other waters of the region, the pH shall not be depressed below 6.5 nor raised above 8.5 units. The Regional Board recognizes that some waters of the Region may have natural pH levels outside of the 6.5 to 8.5 range. Compliance with the pH objective for these waters will be determined on a case-by-case basis.\"" | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site(s) (635BER001) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2014-09-23 and 2015-12-09 | ||||
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 | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 129534 | ||||
Pollutant: | pH | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | 0 of 0 samples exceeded the water quality standard for pH. Although pH data does exist for this waterbody, the objective for this pollutant requires background information that is currently unavailable, and therefore an assessment of water quality standards could not be made. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for the SWAMP RWB6 Monitoring (tissue and water). | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Lahontan Basin Plan's regionwide objective for pH states: \In fresh waters with designated beneficial uses of COLD or WARM, changes in normal ambient pH levels shall not exceed 0.5 pH units. For all other waters of the region, the pH shall not be depressed below 6.5 nor raised above 8.5 units. The Regional Board recognizes that some waters of the Region may have natural pH levels outside of the 6.5 to 8.5 range. Compliance with the pH objective for these waters will be determined on a case-by-case basis.\"" | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site(s) (635BER001) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2014-09-23 and 2015-12-09 | ||||
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 | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 129687 | ||||
Pollutant: | pH | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | 0 of 0 samples exceeded the water quality standard for pH. Although pH data does exist for this waterbody, the objective for this pollutant requires background information that is currently unavailable, and therefore an assessment of water quality standards could not be made. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for the Truckee River Watershed Council. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Lahontan Basin Plan's regionwide objective for pH states: \In fresh waters with designated beneficial uses of COLD or WARM, changes in normal ambient pH levels shall not exceed 0.5 pH units. For all other waters of the region, the pH shall not be depressed below 6.5 nor raised above 8.5 units. The Regional Board recognizes that some waters of the Region may have natural pH levels outside of the 6.5 to 8.5 range. Compliance with the pH objective for these waters will be determined on a case-by-case basis.\"" | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site(s) (MTRBEAR00) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-09-25 and 2016-09-22 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) for Truckee River Monitoring Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) for Truckee River Monitoring Plan. | ||||
DECISION ID |
69077 |
Region 6 |
Bear Creek (Placer County) |
||
Pollutant: | Sedimentation/Siltation |
Final Listing Decision: | Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
Revision Status | Original |
Reason for Delisting: | Applicable WQS attained; reason for recovery unspecified |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Regional Board Conclusion:
This pollutant was considered for removal from the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment 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 removal from the section 303(d) list under sections 4.2 and 4.9 of the Listing Policy. Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of removing this water segment-pollutant combination from 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. The mean of monthly means for turbidity did not exceed the Basin Plan's Water Quality Objective in either location and none of the individual monthly means were in exceedance. Of the 122 individual measurements, there was one sample that exceeded 3 NTU and this sample was taken in the year 1986. The bioassessment data (TRAM) available for this water body shows conflicting water quality conditions; however, there is no clear evidence that sediment is the cause of the impacts seen in one set of bioassessment data. 4. Pursuant to section 4.11 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. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 2866 | ||||
Pollutant: | Sedimentation/Siltation | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Population/Community Degradation | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Not Specified | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | A private aquatic ecologist from Tahoe City was contracted by Alpine Meadows Ski Corporation to sample the upper, middle and lower reaches of Bear Creek. Field sampling was conducted in July 2001 following the Department of Fish and Game's California Stream Bioassessment Procedure (CSBP). The sampling results showed that a robust benthic community exists in Bear Creek, and no evidence of acute impairment from ski resort operations was detectable (Chan, 2001). | ||||
Data Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Lahontan RWQCB Basin Plan: 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: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Alpine Meadows Ski Area: Upstream of main lodge and parking area in the southern fork of the Bear Creek headwaters adjacent to the Meadow chairlift; downstream of the parking area below the Ginzton Bridge just above the subdivision: and immediately upstream of the Truckee River confluence. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | July 2001. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | California Department of Fish and Game. 1999. California Stream Bioassessment Procedure: Protocol Brief for Biological and Physical/ Habitat Assessment in Wadeable Streams. CDFG Pollution Control Laboratory. 10 pp. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 2868 | ||||
Pollutant: | Sedimentation/Siltation | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 122 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Not Specified | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | There were a total of 122 individual measurements of turbidity and 39 monthly means taken from two locations in the Alpine Meadows Ski Area. The mean of monthly means did not exceed the Basin Plan's Water Quality Objective in either location and none of the individual monthly means were in exceedance. Of the 122 individual measurements, there was one sample that exceeded 3 NTU and this sample was taken in the year 1986 (Lahontan RWQCB, 2005b). | ||||
Data Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Lahontan RWQCB Basin Plan: The turbidity shall not be raised above 3 Nephelometric Turbidity Units (NTU) mean of monthly means. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were taken at Alpine Meadows Ski Area near the Lodge and the Ginzton Chalet. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples were taken from July of 1985 through May of 2004. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Waste Discharge Requirement (WDR) Monitoring for Alpine Ski Resort. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 2865 | ||||
Pollutant: | Sedimentation/Siltation | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Population/Community Degradation | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Not Specified | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Dr. David Herbst with the Sierra Nevada Aquatic Research Laboratory (SNARL) performed an assessment in both the 2000 and 2001 seasons, in the lower portion of Bear Creek above the confluence with the Truckee River, and downstream of the ski area parking lot. The biologic data were assessed using an Index of Biologic Integrity (IBI) developed specifically for streams in the Truckee River watershed. The IBI analysis results in a numeric value called a biologic condition score, which can be used to compare streams of similar types to a desired "reference" condition. For the Truckee River watershed, the range of biologic condition scores exhibited by reference streams is 25 to 35 (a higher score indicates better biologic integrity). Bear Creek's scores were 33 (2000) and 29 (2001), indicating that the biologic health in the creek below the ski area (where any impacts would most likely be manifested) is well within the desired conditions exhibited by regional reference streams (Herbst, 2002b). | ||||
Data Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Lahontan RWQCB Basin Plan: 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: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Bear Creek below Alpine Meadow's ski area. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | August 2000 and July of 2001. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Herbst, D.B. 2001. Quality Assurance Project Plan: Aquatic invertebrate bioasessment monitoring in the Eastern Sierra Nevada [California State Water Resources Control Board, Lahontan Region]. Download: http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb6/files.htm | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 2867 | ||||
Pollutant: | Sedimentation/Siltation | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Narrative Description Data | ||||
Matrix: | -N/A | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Not Specified | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Biological Condition Scores in Bear Creek between 2000 and 2003 show that water is greater than 50% impaired. However the data shows improving water quality in 2004 (TRWC, 2006). | ||||
Data Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Lahontan RWQCB Basin Plan: 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: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples collected in Bear Creek just upstream from the confluence with the Truckee River. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data collected between 2002 and 2004. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | QA Info Missing | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||