Water Body Name: | Granger Creek |
Water Body ID: | CAR6412001320080811011416 |
Water Body Type: | River & Stream |
DECISION ID |
74614 |
Region 6 |
Granger Creek |
||
Pollutant: | Nitrogen, Nitrate |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Regional Board Conclusion:
This pollutant was considered for placement on 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 placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The single sample did not exceed the Maximum Contaminant Level. No biological data are available to assess whether this sample exceeded the water quality objective for biostimulatory substances. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used do not satisfy the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data do not satisfy the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. The single sample did not exceed the Maximum Contaminant Level and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. There is no biological information to assess compliance with the biostimulatory substances objective. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | This region was not assessed this cycle. All decisions have been carried over from the previous cycle and remain the same. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 25779 | ||||
Pollutant: | Nitrate | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | The U.S. Bureau of Land Management sampled this station in July 2002. The NO3-N concentration in one sample was 0.17 mg/L. The MCL was not exceeded. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water quality data for surface waters on U.S Bureau of Land Management lands in Lassen and Modoc Counties | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) apply to ambient waters under the Lahontan Basin Plan's "Chemical Constituents" objective. The MCL for nitrate is 45 mg/L , expressed "as nitrate," equivalent to 10 mg/L expressed "as N." | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | One station was sampled. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | One sample was collected on July 24, 2002. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Granger Creek is a tributary of Middle Alkali Lake in the Surprise Valley Hydrologic Unit. As a minor surface water of the Cedarville Hydrologic Area, Granger Creek is categorically designated for both the Warm Freshwater Habitat and Cold Freshwater Habitat beneficial uses, and for the Spawning, Reproduction and Development use. | ||||
QAPP Information: | No quality assurance information was submitted with the data. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 25778 | ||||
Pollutant: | Nitrate | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | The U.S. Bureau of Land Management sampled this station in July 2002. The NO3-N concentration in one sample was 0.17 mg/L. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water quality data for surface waters on U.S Bureau of Land Management lands in Lassen and Modoc Counties | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Lahontan Basin Plan does not include site specific objectives for this water body. The regionwide narrative objective for biostimulatory substances states:
"Waters shall not contain biostimulatory substances in concentrations that promote aquatic growths to the extent that such growths cause nuisance or adversely affect the water for beneficial uses." |
||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | One station was sampled. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | One sample was collected on July 24, 2002. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Granger Creek is a tributary of Middle Alkali Lake in the Surprise Valley Hydrologic Unit. As a minor surface water of the Cedarville Hydrologic Area, Granger Creek is categorically designated for both the Warm Freshwater Habitat and Cold Freshwater Habitat beneficial uses, and for the Spawning, Reproduction and Development use. | ||||
QAPP Information: | No quality assurance information was submitted with the data. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
73506 |
Region 6 |
Granger Creek |
||
Pollutant: | Dissolved oxygen saturation |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
Revision Status | Original |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Regional Board Conclusion:
This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous 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 placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The single sample does not exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used do not satisfy the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used do not satisfy the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 or Table 3.2 of the Policy. 3. The single sample did not exceed the water quality 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: | 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: | 25776 | ||||
Pollutant: | Dissolved oxygen saturation | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | The U.S. Bureau of Land Management sampled this station in July 2002. The dissolved oxygen saturation in one sample was 90 percent. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water quality data for surface waters on U.S Bureau of Land Management lands in Lassen and Modoc Counties | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The regionwide narrative objective in the Lahontan Basin Plan states: "The dissolved oxygen concentration, as percent saturation, shall not be depressed by more than 10 percent, nor shall the minimum dissolved oxygen concentration be less than 80 percent of saturation." | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | One station was sampled. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | One sample was collected on July 24, 2002. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Granger Creek is a tributary of Middle Alkali Lake in the Surprise Valley Hydrologic Unit. As a minor surface water of the Cedarville Hydrologic Area, Granger Creek is categorically designated for both the Warm Freshwater Habitat and Cold Freshwater Habitat beneficial uses, and for the Spawning, Reproduction and Development use. | ||||
QAPP Information: | No quality assurance information was submitted with the data. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
74993 |
Region 6 |
Granger Creek |
||
Pollutant: | Oxygen, Dissolved |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
Revision Status | Original |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Regional Board Conclusion:
This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous 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 placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The single sample does not exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used do not satisfy the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used do not satisfy the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 or Table 3.2 of the Policy. 3. The single sample did not exceed the water quality 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: | 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: | 25775 | ||||
Pollutant: | Oxygen, Dissolved | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | The U.S. Bureau of Land Management sampled this station in July 2002. The dissolved oxygen concentration in one sample was 8.69 mg/L. The objective was not exceeded. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water quality data for surface waters on U.S Bureau of Land Management lands in Lassen and Modoc Counties | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The applicable water quality objective for dissolved oxygen from Lahontan Basin Plan Table 3-6 is a 1 day minimum concentration of 8 mg/L. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | One station was sampled. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | One sample was collected on July 24, 2002. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Granger Creek is a tributary of Middle Alkali Lake in the Surprise Valley Hydrologic Unit. As a minor surface water of the Cedarville Hydrologic Area, Granger Creek is categorically designated for both the Warm Freshwater Habitat and Cold Freshwater Habitat beneficial uses, and for the Spawning, Reproduction and Development use. | ||||
QAPP Information: | No quality assurance information was submitted with the data. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
74493 |
Region 6 |
Granger Creek |
||
Pollutant: | Phosphate |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
Revision Status | Original |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Regional Board Conclusion:
This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous 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 placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. No biological data are available for assessment whether the single sample exceeds the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used do not satisfy the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used do not satisfy the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 or Table 3.1 of the Policy. 3. No biological data are available for assessment of compliance with the objective. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | This region was not assessed this cycle. All decisions have been carried over from the previous cycle and remain the same. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 25780 | ||||
Pollutant: | Phosphate | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | The U.S. Bureau of Land Management sampled this station in July 2002. The PO4-P concentration in one sample was 0.16 mg/L. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water quality data for surface waters on U.S Bureau of Land Management lands in Lassen and Modoc Counties | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Lahontan Basin Plan does not include site specific objectives for this water body. The regionwide narrative objective for biostimulatory substances states:
"Waters shall not contain biostimulatory substances in concentrations that promote aquatic growths to the extent that such growths cause nuisance or adversely affect the water for beneficial uses." |
||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | One station was sampled. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | One sample was collected on July 24, 2002. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Granger Creek is a tributary of Middle Alkali Lake in the Surprise Valley Hydrologic Unit. As a minor surface water of the Cedarville Hydrologic Area, Granger Creek is categorically designated for both the Warm Freshwater Habitat and Cold Freshwater Habitat beneficial uses, and for the Spawning, Reproduction and Development use. | ||||
QAPP Information: | No quality assurance information was submitted with the data. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
74340 |
Region 6 |
Granger Creek |
||
Pollutant: | Sediment |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
Revision Status | Original |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Regional Board Conclusion:
This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle. No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows: One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Region 6's sediment objective is antidegradation-based, and a single sample is insufficient to evaluate compliance by establishing background conditions or showing trends in water quality. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. No quality assurance information is available to evaluate whether the single sample used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The single sample does not satisfy the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. The requirements of section 3.10 of the Listing Policy are not met. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | 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: | 25783 | ||||
Pollutant: | Sediment | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | The U.S. Bureau of Land Management sampled this station in July 2002. The suspended sediment concentration in one sample as 7.5 mg/L. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water quality data for surface waters on U.S Bureau of Land Management lands in Lassen and Modoc Counties | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Lahontan Basin Plan's narrative objective states:
"The suspended sediment load and suspended sediment discharge rate of surface waters shall not be altered in such a manner as to cause nuisance or adversely affect the water for beneficial uses." |
||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | One station was sampled. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | One sample was collected on July 24, 2002. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Granger Creek is a tributary of Middle Alkali Lake in the Surprise Valley Hydrologic Unit. As a minor surface water of the Cedarville Hydrologic Area, Granger Creek is categorically designated for both the Warm Freshwater Habitat and Cold Freshwater Habitat beneficial uses, and for the Spawning, Reproduction and Development use. | ||||
QAPP Information: | No quality assurance information was submitted with the data. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
74819 |
Region 6 |
Granger Creek |
||
Pollutant: | Specific Conductance |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
Revision Status | Original |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Regional Board Conclusion:
This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous 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 placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The single sample does not exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used do not satisfy the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used do not satisfy the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 or Table 3.2 of the Policy. 3. The single sample did not exceed the water quality 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: | 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: | 25773 | ||||
Pollutant: | Specific Conductance | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | The U.S. Bureau of Land Management sampled this station in July 2002. The specific conductance in one sample was 142 uS/cm. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water quality data for surface waters on U.S Bureau of Land Management lands in Lassen and Modoc Counties | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) apply to ambient waters under the Lahontan Basin Plan's "Chemical Constituents" objective. The MCL for specific conductance is 900 microsiemens per centimeter (uS/cm). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | One station was sampled. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | One sample was collected on July 24, 2002. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Granger Creek is a tributary of Middle Alkali Lake in the Surprise Valley Hydrologic Unit. As a minor surface water of the Cedarville Hydrologic Area, Granger Creek is categorically designated for both the Warm Freshwater Habitat and Cold Freshwater Habitat beneficial uses, and for the Spawning, Reproduction and Development use. | ||||
QAPP Information: | No quality assurance information was submitted with the data. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
74940 |
Region 6 |
Granger Creek |
||
Pollutant: | Temperature, water |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
Revision Status | Original |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Regional Board Conclusion:
This pollutant was considered for placement on 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: One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Region 6's temperature objective is antidegradation-based, and a single sample is insufficient to evaluate compliance by establishing background conditions or showing trends in water quality. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. No quality assurance information is available to evaluate whether the single sample used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The single sample does not satisfy the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. The requirements of section 3.10 of the Listing Policy are not met. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | 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: | 25777 | ||||
Pollutant: | Temperature, water | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | The U.S. Bureau of Land Management sampled this station in July 2002. The temperature in one sample was 16.82 degrees Celsius. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water quality data for surface waters on U.S Bureau of Land Management lands in Lassen and Modoc Counties | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The relevant sections of the Lahontan Basin Plan's temperature objective are as follows: "The natural receiving water temperature of all waters shall not be altered unless it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction fo the Regional Board that such an alteration in temperature does not adversely affect the water for beneficial uses.
For waters designated WARM, water temperature shall not be altered by more than five degrees Fahrenheit ... above or below the natural temperature. For waters designated COLD, the temperature shall not be altered." |
||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | One station was sampled. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | One sample was collected on July 24, 2002. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Granger Creek is a tributary of Middle Alkali Lake in the Surprise Valley Hydrologic Unit. As a minor surface water of the Cedarville Hydrologic Area, Granger Creek is categorically designated for both the Warm Freshwater Habitat and Cold Freshwater Habitat beneficial uses, and for the Spawning, Reproduction and Development use. | ||||
QAPP Information: | No quality assurance information was submitted with the data. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
74331 |
Region 6 |
Granger Creek |
||
Pollutant: | Turbidity |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
Revision Status | Original |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Regional Board conclusion: This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous 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 placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The single sample exceeded the Maximum Contaminant Level. The Lahontan Basin Plan's narrative objective for turbidity is antidegradation based. The single sample does not allow establishment of background conditions or documentation of trends to determine compliance with the water quality objective under Listing Policy Section 3.10. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. No quality assurance information is available to show whether the sample used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The single sample used does not satisfy the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. The single sample used exceeds one of the applicable water quality objectives but does not exceed the other, and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | This region was not assessed this cycle. All decisions have been carried over from the previous cycle and remain the same. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 25781 | ||||
Pollutant: | Turbidity | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | The U.S. Bureau of Land Management sampled this station in July 2002. The turbidity in one sample was 12 NTU. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water quality data for surface waters on U.S Bureau of Land Management lands in Lassen and Modoc Counties | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Lahontan Basin Plan's regionwide turbidity objective states: "Waters shall be free of changes in turbidity that cause nuisance or adversely affect the water for beneficial uses. Increases in turbidity shall not exceed natural levels by more than 10 percent." | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | One station was sampled. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | One sample was collected on July 24, 2002. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Granger Creek is a tributary of Middle Alkali Lake in the Surprise Valley Hydrologic Unit. As a minor surface water of the Cedarville Hydrologic Area, Granger Creek is categorically designated for both the Warm Freshwater Habitat and Cold Freshwater Habitat beneficial uses, and for the Spawning, Reproduction and Development use. | ||||
QAPP Information: | No quality assurance information was submitted with the data. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 25782 | ||||
Pollutant: | Turbidity | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | The U.S. Bureau of Land Management sampled this station in July 2002. The turbidity in one sample was 12 NTU. This exceeds the MCL. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water quality data for surface waters on U.S Bureau of Land Management lands in Lassen and Modoc Counties | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) apply to ambient waters under the Lahontan Basin Plan's "Chemical Constituents" objective. The MCL for turbidity is 5 NTU. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | One station was sampled. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | One sample was collected on July 24, 2002. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Granger Creek is a tributary of Middle Alkali Lake in the Surprise Valley Hydrologic Unit. As a minor surface water of the Cedarville Hydrologic Area, Granger Creek is categorically designated for both the Warm Freshwater Habitat and Cold Freshwater Habitat beneficial uses, and for the Spawning, Reproduction and Development use. | ||||
QAPP Information: | No quality assurance information was submitted with the data. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
75048 |
Region 6 |
Granger Creek |
||
Pollutant: | pH |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
Revision Status | Original |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Regional Board Conclusion:
This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle. No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows: One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Region 6's pH objective is antidegradation-based, and a single sample is insufficient to evaluate compliance by establishing background conditions or showing trends in water quality. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. No quality assurance information is available to evaluate whether the single sample used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The single sample does not satisfy the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. The requirements of section 3.10 of the Listing Policy are not met. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | 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: | 25774 | ||||
Pollutant: | pH | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | The U.S. Bureau of Land Management sampled this station in July 2002. The pH in one sample was 8.1 units. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water quality data for surface waters on U.S Bureau of Land Management lands in Lassen and Modoc Counties | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Lahontan Basin Plan's 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: | One station was sampled. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | One sample was collected on July 24, 2002. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Granger Creek is a tributary of Middle Alkali Lake in the Surprise Valley Hydrologic Unit. As a minor surface water of the Cedarville Hydrologic Area, Granger Creek is categorically designated for both the Warm Freshwater Habitat and Cold Freshwater Habitat beneficial uses, and for the Spawning, Reproduction and Development use. | ||||
QAPP Information: | No quality assurance information was submitted with the data. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||