Water Body Name: | Carson River, East Fork |
Water Body ID: | CAR6321007219980803164808 |
Water Body Type: | River & Stream |
DECISION ID |
71797 |
Region 6 |
Carson River, East Fork |
||
Pollutant: | Boron |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Sources: | A Source Unknown |
Expected TMDL Completion Date: | 2025 |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for removal from the CWA section 303(d) List under section 4.2 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant, two of which are based on the same data using different versions of the objective for boron. 7 of the 20 samples exceed the site specific objective for boron. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 7 of 20 samples exceeded the objective and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.2 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 4890 | ||||
Pollutant: | Boron | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 2 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | The U.S Geological Survey sampled boron under the Region 6 SWAMP program between 2002 and 2004. Boron concentrations in nine samples ranged from 16 to 162 ug/L. The annual average objective was exceeded in 2 out of 4 years. | ||||
Data Reference: | 2007. SWAMP Data for the East Fork and West Fork Carson River Hydrologic Units | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The site-specific water quality objective is an annual average of 0.12 mg/L (= 120 ug/L) with a 90th percentile value of 0.250 mg/L (= 250 ug/L). See Lahontan Basin Plan Table 3-14. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | 2007. SWAMP Data for the East Fork and West Fork Carson River Hydrologic Units | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | One station, East Fork Carson River at USGS Gage below Markleeville, was sampled. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Nine samples were collected between 2002 and 2005. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | The East Fork Carson River is an interstate river with headwaters near the Sierra Nevada crest and its lowest point in California in an area transitional to the Great Basin ecoregion. The "below Markleeville" station is downstream of subwatersheds contributing acid mine drainage, and downstream of Markleeville Creek, which is affected by geothermal drainage. Boron in this watershed is likely to come from natural geothermal sources.
In addition to the Cold Freshwater Habitat beneficial use, the river is designated for the Spawning, Reproduction and Development and the Rare, Threatened, or Endangered Species uses. The latter use reflects the presence of Lahontan and Paiute cutthroat trout. |
||||
QAPP Information: | The quality assurance requirements of the SWAMP QAPP were met. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 21492 | ||||
Pollutant: | Boron | ||||
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: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | The U.S Geological Survey sampled boron under the Region 6 SWAMP program between 2002 and 2004. Boron concentrations in nine samples ranged from 16 to 162 ug/L. The criterion was not exceeded. | ||||
Data Reference: | 2007. SWAMP Data for the East Fork and West Fork Carson River Hydrologic Units | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The California State Notification Level for boron is 1000 ug/L. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Drinking Water Notification and Response Levels: An Overview | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | One station, East Fork Carson River at USGS Gage below Markleeville, was sampled. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Nine samples were collected between 2002 and 2005. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | The East Fork Carson River is an interstate river with headwaters near the Sierra Nevada crest and its lowest point in California in an area transitional to the Great Basin ecoregion. The "below Markleeville" station is downstream of subwatersheds contributing acid mine drainage, and downstream of Markleeville Creek, which is affected by geothermal drainage. Boron in this watershed is likely to come from natural geothermal sources.
In addition to the Cold Freshwater Habitat beneficial use, the river is designated for the Spawning, Reproduction and Development and the Rare, Threatened, or Endangered Species uses. The latter use reflects the presence of Lahontan and Paiute cutthroat trout. |
||||
QAPP Information: | The quality assurance requirements of the SWAMP QAPP were met. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 96259 | ||||
Pollutant: | Boron | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 4 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Data were collected by Lahontan field staff as part of routine regional monitoring, beginning in 2010 through 2015. 6 annual averages were computed from the data, ranging from 0.05 mg/L to 0.32 mg/L. 4 out of the 6 annual averages exceeded the water quality objective for this waterbody. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for the SWAMP RWB6 Monitoring (tissue and water). | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The site-specific objective for boron in the Carson River, East Fork, as referenced in the Lahontan Basin Plan table 3-14, states that the annual average shall not exceed 0.12 mg/L. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected at one site, 632ECR005, located at the USGS gauging station approx. 1.5 miles south of the town of Markleeville. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data were collected 25 times between August 2010 and October 2015 in a predominantly quarterly fashion, except between August 2010 and September 2011 when data where collected on a monthly basis. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | The East Fork Carson River is an interstate river with headwaters near the Sierra Nevada crest. Its lowest point in California in an area transitional to the Great Basin ecoregion. The "below Markleeville" station is downstream of subwatersheds contributing acid mine drainage, and downstream of Markleeville Creek, which is affected by geothermal drainage. In addition to the Cold Freshwater Habitat beneficial use, the river is designated for the Spawning, Reproduction and Development and the Rare, Threatened, or Endangered Species uses. The latter use reflects the presence of Lahontan and Paiute cutthroat trout. | ||||
QAPP Information: | Data were collected under 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: | 32233 | ||||
Pollutant: | Boron | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | The annual average of Boron for 2007 for this data set was 0.179 mg/L which exceeds the site-specific Water Quality Objective. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB6 Trend Monitoring CY2006 CY2007 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The site-specific objective for Boron in the Lahontan Basin Plan page 3-40, states that the mean of monthly means for boron shall not exceed 0.12 mg/L. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data was collected at the following station: 632ECR005 (East Fork Carson, at USGS gage below Markleeville). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected between 8/2/2007 - 12/27/2007. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | 2002 QAMP (Quality Assurance Management Plan) for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
77414 |
Region 6 |
Carson River, East Fork |
||
Pollutant: | Phosphorus |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Sources: | A Source Unknown |
Expected TMDL Completion Date: | 2025 |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for removal from the CWA section 303(d) List under section 4.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess pollutant. Eleven of the 13 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 removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Eleven of 13 samples exceeded the objective and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 34485 | ||||
Pollutant: | Phosphorus | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 2 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | 2 of 2 annual averages exceed the water quality objective for Total Phosphorus. Annual averages were calculated by water year starting in June 2006 through December 2007. Total Phosphorus was calculated by summing Orthophosphate as P and Phosphorus as P data. Phosphorus as P data were averaged when they were collected on the same day. Five pairs were summed and then averaged for 2007 before comparing with the annual average Total Phosphorus objective. One pair was available for 2006 to compare with the annual average Total Phosphorus objective. The data were not used in cases where only Phosphorus as P was available without Orthophosphate. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB6 Trend Monitoring CY2006 CY2007 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Table 3-14 of the Basin Plan states that the water quality objective for Total Phosphorus for East Fork Carson River is an annual average objective of 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 East Fork Carson, at USGS gage blw Markleeville (632ECR005). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected from June 2006 through December 2007. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 21498 | ||||
Pollutant: | Phosphorus | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 3 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | The U.S Geological Survey sampled total phosphorus under the Region 6 SWAMP program between 2001 and 2005. Concentrations in 4 of 16 quarterly samples were below the detection level. The remainder of the samples ranged from 0.018 to 0.201 mg/L. Annual averages were below the detection level in 2 of 5 years. Averages in the remaining 3 years ranged from 0.027 to 0.087 mg/L; all three averages exceeded the objective. | ||||
Data Reference: | 2007. SWAMP Data for the East Fork and West Fork Carson River Hydrologic Units | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The site-specific objective for total phosphorus in the East Fork Carson River includes an annual average of 0.02 mg/L and an annual 90th percentile value of 0.03 mg/L. See Lahontan Basin Plan Table 3-14. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | One station, East Fork Carson River at USGS Gage below Markleeville, was sampled. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Sixteen quarterly samples (1 to 5 per year) were collected between 2001 and 2005. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | The East Fork Carson River is an interstate river with headwaters near the Sierra Nevada crest and its lowest point in California in an area transitional to the Great Basin ecoregion. The "below Markleeville" station is downstream of subwatersheds contributing acid mine drainage, and downstream of Markleeville Creek, which is affected by geothermal drainage.
In addition to the Cold Freshwater Habitat beneficial use, the river is designated for the Spawning, Reproduction and Development and the Rare, Threatened, or Endangered Species uses. The latter use reflects the presence of Lahontan and Paiute cutthroat trout. |
||||
QAPP Information: | Sampling and analysis were done according to the SWAMP QAPP. However, in July 2009 an error was discovered in the QAPP related to holding times for total phosphorus samples that affects the validity of data for the Lahontan Region The holding time for samples that are not acid-preserved.should be 48 hours rather than 28 days as indicated in the QAPP. "Low level" phosphorus analyses, without acid preservation, are used in the Lahontan Region's SWAMP program. . | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 96256 | ||||
Pollutant: | Phosphorus | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 6 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Data were collected by Lahontan field staff as part of routine regional monitoring, beginning in 2010 through 2015. 6 annual averages were computed from the data, ranging from 0.021 mg/L to 0.16 mg/L. 6 out of 6 annual averages exceeded the water quality objective for this waterbody. | ||||
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 the Carson River, East Fork, as referenced in the Lahontan Basin Plan table 3-14, states that the annual average 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: | Data were collected at one site, 632ECR005, located at the USGS gauging station approx. 1.5 miles south of the town of Markleeville. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data were collected 27 times between August 2010 and October 2015 in a predominantly quarterly fashion, with the exception of 2010 and 2011 when data were collected with nearly a monthly frequency starting in August 2010. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | The East Fork Carson River is an interstate river with headwaters near the Sierra Nevada crest. Its lowest point in California in an area transitional to the Great Basin ecoregion. The "below Markleeville" station is downstream of subwatersheds contributing acid mine drainage, and downstream of Markleeville Creek, which is affected by geothermal drainage. In addition to the Cold Freshwater Habitat beneficial use, the river is designated for the Spawning, Reproduction and Development and the Rare, Threatened, or Endangered Species uses. The latter use reflects the presence of Lahontan and Paiute cutthroat trout. | ||||
QAPP Information: | Data were collected under the SWAMP QAPP | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
DECISION ID |
75293 |
Region 6 |
Carson River, East Fork |
||
Pollutant: | Sulfates |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Sources: | A Source Unknown |
Expected TMDL Completion Date: | 2025 |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for removal from the CWA section 303(d) List under section 4.2 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant, two of which are based on the same data assessed for different beneficial uses. Eleven of the 12 samples exceed the site specific objective for sulfate in the Basin Plan and zero of twelve samples exceed the MUN guideline for sulfate. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Eleven of twelve samples exceeded the site specific objective and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.2 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 4910 | ||||
Pollutant: | Sulfates | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 4 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | The U.S Geological Survey sampled sulfate under the Region 6 SWAMP program between 2002 and 2005. Sulfate concentrations in 12 samples ranged from 1.3 to 14.8 mg/L. The annual average objective was exceeded in 4 out of 4 years. | ||||
Data Reference: | 2007. SWAMP Data for the East Fork and West Fork Carson River Hydrologic Units | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The site-specific objectives for sulfate in the East Fork Carson River are an annual average of 4.0 mg/L and an annual 90th percentile value of 8.0 mg/L. See Lahontan Basin Plan Table 3-14. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | One station, East Fork Carson River at USGS Gage below Markleeville, was sampled. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Twelve sulfate samples were collected over 4 years (2002 to 2005). | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | The East Fork Carson River is an interstate river with headwaters near the Sierra Nevada crest and its lowest point in California in an area transitional to the Great Basin ecoregion. The "below Markleeville" station is downstream of subwatersheds contributing acid mine drainage, and downstream of Markleeville Creek, which is affected by geothermal drainage.
In addition to the Cold Freshwater Habitat beneficial use, the river is designated for the Spawning, Reproduction and Development and the Rare, Threatened, or Endangered Species uses. The latter use reflects the presence of Lahontan and Paiute cutthroat trout. |
||||
QAPP Information: | The quality assurance requirements of the SWAMP QAPP were met. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 4911 | ||||
Pollutant: | Sulfates | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 12 | ||||
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 Geological Survey sampled sulfate under the Region 6 SWAMP program between 2002 and 2005. Sulfate concentrations in 12 samples ranged from 1.3 to 14.8 mg/L. The MCL was not exceeded. | ||||
Data Reference: | 2007. SWAMP Data for the East Fork and West Fork Carson River Hydrologic Units | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California MCLs apply to ambient waters under the Lahontan Basin Plan's Chemical Constituents objective. The MCL for sulfate is 250 mg/L. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | One station, East Fork Carson River at USGS Gage below Markleeville, was sampled. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Twelve sulfate samples were collected over 4 years (2002 to 2005) . | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | The East Fork Carson River is an interstate river with headwaters near the Sierra Nevada crest and its lowest point in California in an area transitional to the Great Basin ecoregion. The "below Markleeville" station is downstream of subwatersheds contributing acid mine drainage, and downstream of Markleeville Creek, which is affected by geothermal drainage.
In addition to the Cold Freshwater Habitat beneficial use, the river is designated for the Spawning, Reproduction and Development and the Rare, Threatened, or Endangered Species uses. The latter use reflects the presence of Lahontan and Paiute cutthroat trout. |
||||
QAPP Information: | The quality assurance requirements of the SWAMP QAPP were met. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 32262 | ||||
Pollutant: | Sulfates | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 2 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | The samples collected for years 2006 and 2007 did exceed the water quality objective. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB6 Trend Monitoring CY2006 CY2007 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | From the Lahontan Basin Plan Table 3-14, the water quality objective for sulfate in this water body is an annual average of 4 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 632ECR005 - East Fork Carson, at USGS gage blw Markleeville. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected 6/29/2006 - 12/7/2006 and 1/10/2007 - 12/27/2007. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | 2002 QAMP (Quality Assurance Management Plan) for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 96257 | ||||
Pollutant: | Sulfates | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 5 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Data were collected by Lahontan field staff as part of routine regional monitoring, beginning in 2010 through 2015. 6 annual averages were computed from the data, ranging from 3.72 mg/L to 6.48 mg/L. 5 out of 6 annual averages exceeded the water quality objective for this waterbody. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for the SWAMP RWB6 Monitoring (tissue and water). | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The site-specific objective for sulfates in the Carson River, East Fork, as referenced in the Lahontan Basin Plan table 3-14, states that the annual average shall not exceed 4.0 mg/L. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected at one site, 632ECR005, located at the USGS gauging station approx. 1.5 miles south of the town of Markleeville. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data were collected 28 times between August 2010 and October 2015 in a predominantly quarterly fashion, with the exception of 2010 and 2011 when data were collected with nearly a monthly frequency starting in August 2010 through August 2011. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | The East Fork Carson River is an interstate river with headwaters near the Sierra Nevada crest. Its lowest point in California in an area transitional to the Great Basin ecoregion. The "below Markleeville" station is downstream of subwatersheds contributing acid mine drainage, and downstream of Markleeville Creek, which is affected by geothermal drainage. In addition to the Cold Freshwater Habitat beneficial use, the river is designated for the Spawning, Reproduction and Development and the Rare, Threatened, or Endangered Species uses. The latter use reflects the presence of Lahontan and Paiute cutthroat trout. | ||||
QAPP Information: | Data were collected under the SWAMP QAPP | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
DECISION ID |
78523 |
Region 6 |
Carson River, East Fork |
||
Pollutant: | Total Dissolved Solids |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Sources: | A Source Unknown |
Expected TMDL Completion Date: | 2028 |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for removal from the CWA section 303(d) List under section 4.2 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Nineteen of the 40 samples exceed the applicable objective for Total Dissolved Solids, Nineteen out of 24 samples exceed the Basin Plan site specific objective for Total Dissolved Solids and zero out of 16 samples exceed the MUN guideline.. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Nineteen of 40 samples exceeded the objective and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.2 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 96261 | ||||
Pollutant: | Total Dissolved Solids | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 3 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Data were collected by Lahontan Water Board TMDL staff between December 2014 and December 2016. 3 annual averages were computed from the raw data, ranging from 56 mg/L to 84 mg/L. One of three annual averages exceeded the water quality objective for the waterbody. Data collected in 2015 and 2016 was done so with higher frequency (see temporal representation) and thus the annual averages did not exceed the WQO. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for the TMDL Integrated Report Special Study. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The site-specific objective for total dissolved solids (TDS) in the Carson River, East Fork, as referenced in the Lahontan Basin Plan table 3-14, states that the annual average shall not exceed 80 mg/L. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected at one location on the waterbody segment, just upstream of Hangman's Bridge (site tag 632ECRB10) located to the southeast of Markleeville on Highway 89. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data were collected on one occasion in 2014, during the spring and summer 2015 and monthly in 2016. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | The East Fork Carson River is an interstate river with headwaters near the Sierra Nevada crest. Its lowest point in California in an area transitional to the Great Basin ecoregion. The "below Markleeville" station is downstream of subwatersheds contributing acid mine drainage, and downstream of Markleeville Creek, which is affected by geothermal drainage. In addition to the Cold Freshwater Habitat beneficial use, the river is designated for the Spawning, Reproduction and Development and the Rare, Threatened, or Endangered Species uses. The latter use reflects the presence of Lahontan and Paiute cutthroat trout. | ||||
QAPP Information: | Data were collected using 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: | 96258 | ||||
Pollutant: | Total Dissolved Solids | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 7 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 6 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Data were collected by Lahontan SWAMP field staff as part of routine regional monitoring, beginning in 2011 through 2015. 7 annual averages were computed from the data, ranging from 71 mg/L to 105 mg/L. 6 out of 7 annual averages exceeded the water quality objective for this waterbody. | ||||
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 the Carson River, East Fork, as referenced in the Lahontan Basin Plan table 3-14, states that the annual average shall not exceed 80 mg/L. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected at two sites, 632ECR005 and 632ECRB10. 632ECR005 is located at the USGS gauging station approx. 1.5 miles south of the town of Markleeville. 632ECRB10 is located directly upstream of Hangman's Bridge, found approx. 0.5 miles southeast of the town of Markleeville on Highway 89. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data were collected 24 times between January 2011 and October 2015 on a predominantly quarterly basis. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | The East Fork Carson River is an interstate river with headwaters near the Sierra Nevada crest. Its lowest point in California in an area transitional to the Great Basin ecoregion. The "below Markleeville" station is downstream of subwatersheds contributing acid mine drainage, and downstream of Markleeville Creek, which is affected by geothermal drainage. In addition to the Cold Freshwater Habitat beneficial use, the river is designated for the Spawning, Reproduction and Development and the Rare, Threatened, or Endangered Species uses. The latter use reflects the presence of Lahontan and Paiute cutthroat trout. | ||||
QAPP Information: | Data were collected under 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: | 96260 | ||||
Pollutant: | Total Dissolved Solids | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 7 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 7 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Data were collected by the Alpine Watershed Group (AWG), an active stakeholder community group operating out of Markleeville, Alpine Co. Data were collected between 2010 and 2017, and annual averages range from 93 mg/L to 190 mg/L. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for Alpine Watershed Group Monitoring Program. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The site-specific objective for total dissolved solids (TDS) in the Carson River, East Fork, as referenced in the Lahontan Basin Plan table 3-14, states that the annual average shall not exceed 80 mg/L. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected at one location on the waterbody segment at Hangman's Bridge, located to the southeast of Markleeville on Highway 89. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data were collected quarterly, beginning in September 2010 and ending in March 2017. Only one data point exists for 2017. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | The East Fork Carson River is an interstate river with headwaters near the Sierra Nevada crest. Its lowest point in California in an area transitional to the Great Basin ecoregion. The "below Markleeville" station is downstream of subwatersheds contributing acid mine drainage, and downstream of Markleeville Creek, which is affected by geothermal drainage. In addition to the Cold Freshwater Habitat beneficial use, the river is designated for the Spawning, Reproduction and Development and the Rare, Threatened, or Endangered Species uses. The latter use reflects the presence of Lahontan and Paiute cutthroat trout. | ||||
QAPP Information: | Data were collected using the Quality Assurance Project Plan for Alpine Watershed Group Volunteer Citizen Water Quality Monitoring Program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Alpine Watershed Group Volunteer Citizen Water Quality Monitoring Program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 32227 | ||||
Pollutant: | Total Dissolved Solids | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total 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: | The annual averages for TDS for both years for this data set were below the Water Quality Objective. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB6 Trend Monitoring CY2006 CY2007 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The site-pecific objective for Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) in Lahontan Basin Plan Table 3-14, includes an annual average of 80 mg/L. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected at the following station: 632ECR005 (East Fork Carson, at USGS gage blw Markleeville). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected between 6/29/2006 - 12/7/2006 and 1/10/2007 - 11/6/2007. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | 2002 QAMP (Quality Assurance Management Plan) for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 4915 | ||||
Pollutant: | Total Dissolved Solids | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 5 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | The U.S Geological Survey sampled TDS under the Region 6 SWAMP program between 2002 and 2005. TDS concentrations in 16 samples reported as "residue" ranged from 45 to 118 mg/L. Annual averages (based on 1 to 5 samples per year) ranged from 81 to 112 mg/L. The highest average was based on a single sample. The annual average objective was exceeded in 5 of 5 years.
In addition the calculated 90th percentile for the 16 samples was 115.4 mg/L, which is higher than the 90th percentile site specific objective of 100 mg/L. An additional 6 samples reported as "nonfilterable" TDS were collected in 2003 and 2004 (on the same dates as the "residue" samples. Concentrations in four samples were below the detection level; concentrations in the remaining samples were 10 and 93 mg/L. |
||||
Data Reference: | 2007. SWAMP Data for the East Fork and West Fork Carson River Hydrologic Units | ||||
USEPA Region 9 data summary for addition of total dissolved solids to California 2010 303(d) list for Carson River and Mammoth Creek in Lahontan Region | |||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The site specific objective for Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) is an annual average of 80 mg/L and a 90th percentile value of 100 mg/L (Lahontan Basin Plan Table 3-14). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | One station, East Fork Carson River at USGS Gage below Markleeville, was sampled. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Sixteen samples reported as "residue" were collected over 5 years (2001 to 2005 at 1 to 5 samples per year). An additional 6 samples reported as "nonfilterable" were collected in 2004 and 2005.) | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | The East Fork Carson River is an interstate river with headwaters near the Sierra Nevada crest and its lowest point in California in an area transitional to the Great Basin ecoregion. The "below Markleeville" station is downstream of subwatersheds contributing acid mine drainage, and downstream of Markleeville Creek, which is affected by geothermal drainage.
In addition to the Cold Freshwater Habitat beneficial use, the river is designated for the Spawning, Reproduction and Development and the Rare, Threatened, or Endangered Species uses. The latter use reflects the presence of Lahontan and Paiute cutthroat trout. |
||||
QAPP Information: | The quality assurance requirements of the SWAMP QAPP were met. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 4917 | ||||
Pollutant: | Total Dissolved Solids | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 16 | ||||
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 Geological Survey sampled TDS under the Region 6 SWAMP program between 2001 and 2005. TDS concentrations in 16 samples ranged from 45 to 118 mg/L. The MCL was not exceeded. | ||||
Data Reference: | 2007. SWAMP Data for the East Fork and West Fork Carson River Hydrologic Units | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) apply to ambient waters under the Lahontan Basin Plan's "Chemical Constituents" objective. The MCL for Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) is 500 mg/L. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | One station, East Fork Carson River at USGS Gage below Markleeville, was sampled. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Sixteen samples were collected over 5 years (2001 to 2005 at 1 to 5 samples per year). | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | The East Fork Carson River is an interstate river with headwaters near the Sierra Nevada crest and its lowest point in California in an area transitional to the Great Basin ecoregion. The "below Markleeville" station is downstream of subwatersheds contributing acid mine drainage, and downstream of Markleeville Creek, which is affected by geothermal drainage.
In addition to the Cold Freshwater Habitat beneficial use, the river is designated for the Spawning, Reproduction and Development and the Rare, Threatened, or Endangered Species uses. The latter use reflects the presence of Lahontan and Paiute cutthroat trout. |
||||
QAPP Information: | The quality assurance requirements of the SWAMP QAPP were met. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
103243 |
Region 6 |
Carson River, East Fork |
||
Pollutant: | Aldrin |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant that consists of a single tissue sample. Zero of one samples exceed the tissue guideline for aldrin. 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 one samples exceeded the guideline and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 99620 | ||||
Pollutant: | Aldrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
Fraction: | Fish fillet | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP Sportfish Rivers and Streams data for Carson River, East Fork to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows 0 of the 1 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Aldrin. Data were collected for 1 fish species (1 composite(s) of Rainbow Trout each composed of 5 fish per composite). | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP Sportfish Rivers and Streams. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Aldrin concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data was collected from 1 station(s) with the station code(s): 632ECR009. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this line of evidence were collected between 2011-08-15 and 2011-08-15 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
DECISION ID |
101895 |
Region 6 |
Carson River, East Fork |
||
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. Zero of the 28 samples exceed the guideline for alkalinity. 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 28 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 because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 98719 | ||||
Pollutant: | Alkalinity as CaCO3 | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 28 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB6 Monitoring data for Carson River, East Fork to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 28 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) (632ECR005) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-08-31 and 2015-10-26 | ||||
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 |
103804 |
Region 6 |
Carson River, East Fork |
||
Pollutant: | Anatoxin-A |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant that is based on a single tissue sample. Zero of one samples exceed the tissue guideline for Anatoxin-A. 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 one samples exceeded the guideline and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 99505 | ||||
Pollutant: | Anatoxin-A | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
Fraction: | Fish fillet | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP Sportfish Rivers and Streams data for Carson River, East Fork to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows 0 of the 1 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Anatoxin-A. Data were collected for 1 fish species (1 composite(s) of Rainbow Trout each composed of 5 fish per composite). | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP Sportfish Rivers and Streams. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The 5000 ng/g wet weight action level for Anatoxin-A for edible sport fish and shellfish identifies the maximum concentration of cyanotoxins that a typical consumer (one meal per week) could ingest without exceeding the reference dose.(OEHHA 2012) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Toxicological Summary and Suggested Action Levels to Reduce Potential Adverse Health Effects of Six Cyanotoxins | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data was collected from 1 station(s) with the station code(s): 632ECR009. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this line of evidence were collected between 2011-08-15 and 2011-08-15 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
DECISION ID |
103522 |
Region 6 |
Carson River, East Fork |
||
Pollutant: | Benthic Community Effects |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Benthic Community Effects are being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under sections 3.9 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.9, additional lines of evidence (LOEs) associating the Benthic Community Effects decision with a water or sediment concentration of pollutants other than benthic-macroinvertebrate bioassessment or habitat assessment LOEs are necessary to place a water body on the 303(d) List for Benthic Community Effects.
One line of evidence evaluating benthic-macroinvertebrate bioassessment data are available in the administrative record to assess this indicator. 0 of 5 benthic-macroinvertebrate samples exceed the California Stream Condition Index (CSCI) impairment threshold. These data indicate that the waterbody is likely unimpaired for Benthic Community Effects and therefore no other pollutant LOEs need be associated with this decision at this time. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing Benthic Community Effects in this waterbody segment on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 0 of 5 benthic-macroinvertebrate bioassessment samples had CSCI scores below 0.79. Therefore, this water body is not exceeding the water quality threshold for the protection of the COLD beneficial use. The available information indicates that the waterbody/pollutant combination should not be placed on the 303(d) List of impaired waters at this time. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 96756 | ||||
Pollutant: | Benthic-Macroinvertebrate Bioassessments | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Population/Community Degradation | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Not Specified | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | The site had CSCI score of 1.121956, 0.957187, 0.963474, 1.091828478, and 1.110417 and is therefore not exceeding the water quality objective for the aquatic life beneficial use. Additionally, this water body passed several screening criteria and was identified as a reference water body for the purposes of developing the CSCI. Reference sites where human disturbance is absent or minimal are used to set benchmark expectations for healthy streams. A large set of nearly 600 reference sites representing the broad diversity of natural stream types found across California was used to develop the CSCI. Additionally, this water body passed several screening criteria and was identified as a reference water body for the purposes of developing the CSCI. Reference sites where human disturbance is absent or minimal are used to set benchmark expectations for healthy streams. A large set of nearly 600 reference sites representing the broad diversity of natural stream types found across California was used to develop the CSCI. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for the SWAMP Reference Condition Management Plan (RCMP). | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are lethal to or that produce significant alterations in population or community ecology or receiving water biota. In addition, the health and life history characteristics of aquatic organisms in waters affected by controllable water quality factors shall not differ significantly from those for the same waters in areas unaffected by controllable water quality factors. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The California Stream Condition Index (CSCI) is a biological scoring tool that helps aquatic resource managers translate complex data about benthic macroinvertebrates found living in a stream into an overall measure of stream health. The CSCI score is calculated by comparing the expected condition with actual (observed) results (Rhen, A.C. et al., 2015). CSCI scores range from 0 (highly degraded) to greater than 1 (equivalent to reference). CSCI scoring of biological condition are as follows (per the scientific paper supporting the development of the CSCI scoring tool): greater than or equal to 0.92 = likely intact condition, 0.91 to 0.80 = possibly altered condition, 0.79 to 0.63 = likely altered condition, less than or equal to 0.62 = very likely altered condition. Sites with scores below 0.79 are considered to have exceeded the water quality objective for the aquatic life beneficial use. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Bioassessment in complex environments: designing an index for consistent meaning in different settings | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Sample collected at the following station: 634CE0482 and 632ECR008 | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Sample Collected on 9/7/2000, 9/8/2007, 6/23/2015, 6/29/2007 and 7/14/2004 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | QAPP for SWAMP Reference Condition Management Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
DECISION ID |
103244 |
Region 6 |
Carson River, East Fork |
||
Pollutant: | Chlordane |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board 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 that are both on the same tissue sample assessed for COLD and COMM. Zero of one samples exceed the COMM guideline and zero of one samples exceed the COLD guideline for chlordane. 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 one samples exceed the COMM guideline and zero of one samples exceed the COLD guideline and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 99472 | ||||
Pollutant: | Chlordane | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
Fraction: | Fish fillet | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP Sportfish Rivers and Streams data for Carson River, East Fork to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows 0 of the 1 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Total Chlordanes. Data were collected for 1 fish species (1 composite(s) of Rainbow Trout each composed of 5 fish per composite). | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP Sportfish Rivers and Streams. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for total chlordane in fish tissue is 3.9 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets. (Klasing, S., and R. Brodberg, 2008) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data was collected from 1 station(s) with the station code(s): 632ECR009. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this line of evidence were collected between 2011-08-15 and 2011-08-15 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 99473 | ||||
Pollutant: | Chlordane | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
Fraction: | Fish fillet | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP Sportfish Rivers and Streams data for Carson River, East Fork to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows 0 of the 1 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Total Chlordanes. Data were collected for 1 fish species (1 composite(s) of Rainbow Trout each composed of 5 fish per composite). | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP Sportfish Rivers and Streams. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum total Chlordane concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data was collected from 1 station(s) with the station code(s): 632ECR009. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this line of evidence were collected between 2011-08-15 and 2011-08-15 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
DECISION ID |
72191 |
Region 6 |
Carson River, East Fork |
||
Pollutant: | Chloride |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Four lines of evidence,two LOES to evaluate COLD and one LOE to evaluate MUN, are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used do not satisfy the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. Quarterly samples (the 2010 LOE associated with COLD relied on 12 samples collected over a 4 year period to calculate annual averages) and do not capture the seasonal and annual variability expected in streamflows and constituent concentrations in streams of the Lahontan Region. 3. None of the 12 samples exceeded the MCL for MUN, and none of 6 annual average datapoints exceeded the site-specific, annual average objective and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 26 samples is needed for application of table 3.2. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. 5. In May 2009, the Lahontan Water Board issued the California Department of Parks and Recreation Waste Discharge Requirements Order No. R6T-2009-0025 which requires discharges from the Grover Hot Springs State Park (1) comply with receiving water limitations for chloride and other constituents. Discharges from Grover Hot Springs discharge to Hotsprings Creek, which is tributary to Markleeville Creek, which is tributary to Carson River East Fork. Grover Hot Springs does chlorinate its cold pool. Discharge water is dechlorinated before being discharged to HotSprings Creek but any residual chloride discharges, that may reach the East Fork of the Carson River should be controlled through implementation of best management practices required by Order No. R6T-2009-0025. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | . |
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: | 96254 | ||||
Pollutant: | Chloride | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
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: | Data were collected by Lahontan field staff as part of routine regional monitoring, beginning in 2010 through 2015. 6 annual averages were computed from the data, ranging from 1.04 mg/L to 3.8 mg/L. None of the 6 annual averages exceeded the water quality objective for this waterbody. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for the SWAMP RWB6 Monitoring (tissue and water). | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The site-specific objective for chloride in the Carson River, East Fork, as referenced in the Lahontan Basin Plan table 3-14, states that the annual average shall not exceed 4.0 mg/L. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected at one site, 632ECR005, located at the USGS gauging station approx. 1.5 miles south of the town of Markleeville. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data were collected 21 times between October 2010 and October 2015 in a predominantly quarterly fashion. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | The East Fork Carson River is an interstate river with headwaters near the Sierra Nevada crest. Its lowest point in California in an area transitional to the Great Basin ecoregion. The "below Markleeville" station is downstream of subwatersheds contributing acid mine drainage, and downstream of Markleeville Creek, which is affected by geothermal drainage. In addition to the Cold Freshwater Habitat beneficial use, the river is designated for the Spawning, Reproduction and Development and the Rare, Threatened, or Endangered Species uses. The latter use reflects the presence of Lahontan and Paiute cutthroat trout. | ||||
QAPP Information: | Data were collected under 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: | 4893 | ||||
Pollutant: | Chloride | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 12 | ||||
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 Geological Survey sampled chloride under the Region 6 SWAMP program between 2002 and 2005. Chloride concentrations in 12 samples ranged from 0.33 to 4.39 mg/L. The MCL was not exceeded. | ||||
Data Reference: | 2007. SWAMP Data for the East Fork and West Fork Carson River Hydrologic Units | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) apply to ambient waters under the Lahontan Basin Plan's "Chemical Constituent" objective. The MCL for chloride is 250 mg/L. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | One station, East Fork Carson River at USGS Gage below Markleeville, was sampled. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Twelve chloride samples were collected over 4 years (2002 to 2005). | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | The East Fork Carson River is an interstate river with headwaters near the Sierra Nevada crest and its lowest point in California in an area transitional to the Great Basin ecoregion. The "below Markleeville" station is downstream of subwatersheds contributing acid mine drainage, and downstream of Markleeville Creek, which is affected by geothermal drainage.
In addition to the Cold Freshwater Habitat beneficial use, the river is designated for the Spawning, Reproduction and Development and the Rare, Threatened, or Endangered Species uses. The latter use reflects the presence of Lahontan and Paiute cutthroat trout. |
||||
QAPP Information: | The quality assurance requirements of the SWAMP QAPP were met. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 4892 | ||||
Pollutant: | Chloride | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
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 Geological Survey sampled chloride under the Region 6 SWAMP program between 2002 and 2005. Chloride concentrations in 12 samples ranged from 0.33 to 4.39 mg/L. Annual average concentrations did not exceed the objective. | ||||
Data Reference: | 2007. SWAMP Data for the East Fork and West Fork Carson River Hydrologic Units | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The site-specific objectives are an annual average of 4.0 mg/L and a 90th percentile value 6.0 mg/L. See Lahontan Basin Plan Table 3-14. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | One station, East Fork Carson River at USGS gage below Markleeville, was sampled. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Twelve chloride samples were collected over 4 years (2002 to 2005). | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | The East Fork Carson River is an interstate river with headwaters near the Sierra Nevada crest and its lowest point in California in an area transitional to the Great Basin ecoregion. The "below Markleeville" station is downstream of subwatersheds contributing acid mine drainage, and downstream of Markleeville Creek, which is affected by geothermal drainage.
In addition to the Cold Freshwater Habitat beneficial use, the river is designated for the Spawning, Reproduction and Development and the Rare, Threatened, or Endangered Species uses. The latter use reflects the presence of Lahontan and Paiute cutthroat trout. |
||||
QAPP Information: | The quality assurance requirements of the SWAMP QAPP were met. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 32240 | ||||
Pollutant: | Chloride | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total 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: | The annual average for CL for this data set does not exceed the Water Quality Objective. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB6 Trend Monitoring CY2006 CY2007 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The site-specific objective for Chloride in the Lahontan Basin Plan page 3-40, states that the annual average for Chloride shall not exceed 4.0 mg/L. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected at the following station: 632ECR005 - East Fork Carson, at USGS gage below Markleeville. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected 6/29/2006 - 12/7/2006 and 1/10/2007 - 11/6/2007. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | 2002 QAMP (Quality Assurance Management Plan) for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
103255 |
Region 6 |
Carson River, East Fork |
||
Pollutant: | DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant that are both based on the same single tissue sample assessed for COLD and COMM. Zero of one samples exceed the COLD guideline and zero of one samples exceed the COMM 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. [NUMBER] of [NUMBER] samples exceeded the [OBJECTIVE/GUIDELINE/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: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 99332 | ||||
Pollutant: | Total DDT (sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
Fraction: | Fish fillet | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP Sportfish Rivers and Streams data for Carson River, East Fork to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows 0 of the 1 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Total DDT (sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD). Data were collected for 1 fish species (1 composite(s) of Rainbow Trout each composed of 5 fish per composite). | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP Sportfish Rivers and Streams. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for total DDT in fish tissue is 15 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets. (Klasing, S., and R. Brodberg, 2008) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data was collected from 1 station(s) with the station code(s): 632ECR009. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this line of evidence were collected between 2011-08-15 and 2011-08-15 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 99333 | ||||
Pollutant: | Total DDT (sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
Fraction: | Fish fillet | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP Sportfish Rivers and Streams data for Carson River, East Fork to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows 0 of the 1 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Total DDT (sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD). Data were collected for 1 fish species (1 composite(s) of Rainbow Trout each composed of 5 fish per composite). | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP Sportfish Rivers and Streams. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum total DDT concentration of 1000 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data was collected from 1 station(s) with the station code(s): 632ECR009. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this line of evidence were collected between 2011-08-15 and 2011-08-15 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
DECISION ID |
103245 |
Region 6 |
Carson River, East Fork |
||
Pollutant: | Dieldrin |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board 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 that are both based on the same single tissue sample assessed for COLD and COMM. Zero of one samples exceed the COLD guideline and one of one samples exceed the COMM 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. [Zero of one samples exceed the COLD guideline and one of one samples exceed the COMM guideline and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 99598 | ||||
Pollutant: | Dieldrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
Fraction: | Fish fillet | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP Sportfish Rivers and Streams data for Carson River, East Fork to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows 1 of the 1 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Dieldrin. Data were collected for 1 fish species (1 composite(s) of Rainbow Trout each composed of 5 fish per composite). Of these, 1 species (Rainbow Trout) exceeded the water quality standard. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP Sportfish Rivers and Streams. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for dieldrin in fish tissue is 0.32 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets. (Klasing, S., and R. Brodberg, 2008) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data was collected from 1 station(s) with the station code(s): 632ECR009. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this line of evidence were collected between 2011-08-15 and 2011-08-15 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 99116 | ||||
Pollutant: | Dieldrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
Fraction: | Fish fillet | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP Sportfish Rivers and Streams data for Carson River, East Fork to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows 0 of the 1 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Dieldrin. Data were collected for 1 fish species (1 composite(s) of Rainbow Trout each composed of 5 fish per composite). | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP Sportfish Rivers and Streams. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Dieldrin concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data was collected from 1 station(s) with the station code(s): 632ECR009. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this line of evidence were collected between 2011-08-15 and 2011-08-15 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
DECISION ID |
103246 |
Region 6 |
Carson River, East Fork |
||
Pollutant: | Endosulfan |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant that are both based on the same single tissue sample assessed for COMM and COLD. Zero of one samples exceed the COLD guideline and zero of one samples exceed the COMM 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. Zero of one samples exceed the COLD guideline and zero of one samples exceed the COMM guideline and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 99146 | ||||
Pollutant: | Endosulfan | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
Fraction: | Fish fillet | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP Sportfish Rivers and Streams data for Carson River, East Fork to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows 0 of the 1 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Endosulfan. Data were collected for 1 fish species (1 composite(s) of Rainbow Trout each composed of 5 fish per composite). | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP Sportfish Rivers and Streams. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Endosulfan, Total concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data was collected from 1 station(s) with the station code(s): 632ECR009. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this line of evidence were collected between 2011-08-15 and 2011-08-15 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 99148 | ||||
Pollutant: | Endosulfan | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
Fraction: | Fish fillet | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP Sportfish Rivers and Streams data for Carson River, East Fork to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows 0 of the 1 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Endosulfan. Data were collected for 1 fish species (1 composite(s) of Rainbow Trout each composed of 5 fish per composite). | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP Sportfish Rivers and Streams. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for endosulfan (l and ll) in fish tissue is 13,000 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets. (Klasing, S., and R. Brodberg, 2008; USEPA, 2000) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use In Fish Advisories Volume 1: Fish Sampling and Analysis | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data was collected from 1 station(s) with the station code(s): 632ECR009. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this line of evidence were collected between 2011-08-15 and 2011-08-15 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
DECISION ID |
103247 |
Region 6 |
Carson River, East Fork |
||
Pollutant: | Endrin |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board 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 that are both based on the same single tissue sample assessed for COLD and COMM. Zero of one samples exceed the COLD guideline and zero of one samples exceed the COMM 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. Zero of one samples exceed the COLD guideline and zero of one samples exceed the COMM guideline and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 99160 | ||||
Pollutant: | Endrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
Fraction: | Fish fillet | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP Sportfish Rivers and Streams data for Carson River, East Fork to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows 0 of the 1 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Endrin. Data were collected for 1 fish species (1 composite(s) of Rainbow Trout each composed of 5 fish per composite). | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP Sportfish Rivers and Streams. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Endrin concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data was collected from 1 station(s) with the station code(s): 632ECR009. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this line of evidence were collected between 2011-08-15 and 2011-08-15 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 99408 | ||||
Pollutant: | Endrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
Fraction: | Fish fillet | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP Sportfish Rivers and Streams data for Carson River, East Fork to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows 0 of the 1 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Endrin. Data were collected for 1 fish species (1 composite(s) of Rainbow Trout each composed of 5 fish per composite). | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP Sportfish Rivers and Streams. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for endrin in fish tissue is 660 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets. (Klasing, S., and R. Brodberg, 2008; USEPA, 2000) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use In Fish Advisories Volume 1: Fish Sampling and Analysis | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data was collected from 1 station(s) with the station code(s): 632ECR009. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this line of evidence were collected between 2011-08-15 and 2011-08-15 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
DECISION ID |
70751 |
Region 6 |
Carson River, East Fork |
||
Pollutant: | Fluoride |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the 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. Zero of the 21 samples exceed the MUN guideline for Fluoride. 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 21 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: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 33341 | ||||
Pollutant: | Fluoride | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Zero of 2 samples exceeded the water quality objective. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB6 Trend Monitoring CY2006 CY2007 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) apply to ambient waters under the Lahontan Basin Plan's "Chemical Constituents" objective. The MCL for Fluoride is 2.0 mg/L. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected at the following station: 632ECR005 (East Fork Carson, at USGS gage blw Markleeville). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected between 8/2/07 and and 11/6/07. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | 2002 QAMP (Quality Assurance Management Plan) for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 98606 | ||||
Pollutant: | Fluoride | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 19 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB6 Monitoring data for Carson River, East Fork to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 19 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) (632ECR005) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-10-20 and 2015-10-26 | ||||
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 |
103248 |
Region 6 |
Carson River, East Fork |
||
Pollutant: | Heptachlor |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant that consists of a single tissue sample. Zero of one samples exceed the tissue guideline for heptachlor. 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 one samples exceeded the guideline and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 99200 | ||||
Pollutant: | Heptachlor | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
Fraction: | Fish fillet | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP Sportfish Rivers and Streams data for Carson River, East Fork to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows 0 of the 1 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Heptachlor. Data were collected for 1 fish species (1 composite(s) of Rainbow Trout each composed of 5 fish per composite). | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP Sportfish Rivers and Streams. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Heptachlor concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data was collected from 1 station(s) with the station code(s): 632ECR009. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this line of evidence were collected between 2011-08-15 and 2011-08-15 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
DECISION ID |
103249 |
Region 6 |
Carson River, East Fork |
||
Pollutant: | Heptachlor epoxide |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant that are both based on the same single sample assessed for COLD and COMM, however the COMM assessment was inconclusive due to quantitation issues. Zero of one samples exceed the COLD tissue guideline for heptachlor epoxide. 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 one samples exceeded the guideline and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 99184 | ||||
Pollutant: | Heptachlor epoxide | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
Fraction: | Fish fillet | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP Sportfish Rivers and Streams data for Carson River, East Fork to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows 0 of the 1 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Heptachlor Epoxide. Data were collected for 1 fish species (1 composite(s) of Rainbow Trout each composed of 5 fish per composite). | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP Sportfish Rivers and Streams. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Heptachlor Epoxide concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data was collected from 1 station(s) with the station code(s): 632ECR009. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this line of evidence were collected between 2011-08-15 and 2011-08-15 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 99183 | ||||
Pollutant: | Heptachlor epoxide | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
Fraction: | Fish fillet | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Waterboard staff assessed SWAMP Sportfish Rivers and Streams data for Carson River, East Fork to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: Zero of Zero samples exceeded the water quality standard for Heptachlor Epoxide. Although data was collected for 1 fish species (1 composite(s) of Rainbow Trout each composed of 5 fish per composite), all 1 sample(s) had to be thrown out due to quantitation issues. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP Sportfish Rivers and Streams. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for heptachlor epoxide in fish tissue is 0.93 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets. (Klasing, S., and R. Brodberg, 2008; OEHHA, 1999) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Public Health Goal for Heptachlor and Heptachlor Epoxide in Drinking Water | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data was collected from 1 station(s) with the station code(s): 632ECR009. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this line of evidence were collected between 2011-08-15 and 2011-08-15 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
DECISION ID |
103250 |
Region 6 |
Carson River, East Fork |
||
Pollutant: | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant that is based on a single tissue sample. Zero of one samples exceed the COMM tissue 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. Zero of one samples exceeded the guideline and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 99427 | ||||
Pollutant: | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
Fraction: | Fish fillet | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP Sportfish Rivers and Streams data for Carson River, East Fork to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows 0 of the 1 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Hexachlorobenzene. Data were collected for 1 fish species (1 composite(s) of Rainbow Trout each composed of 5 fish per composite). | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP Sportfish Rivers and Streams. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for hexachlorobenzene in fish tissue is 2.8 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets. (Klasing, S., and R. Brodberg, 2008; OEHHA, 2005) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Air Toxics Hotspots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines. Part ll Technical Support Document for Describing Available Cancer Potency Values. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data was collected from 1 station(s) with the station code(s): 632ECR009. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this line of evidence were collected between 2011-08-15 and 2011-08-15 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
DECISION ID |
68309 |
Region 6 |
Carson River, East Fork |
||
Pollutant: | Iron |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The four lines of evidence are based on two data sets that are each assessed for both MUN and COLD beneficial uses, with MUN having the more stringent guideline value. Zero of the six samples exceed the guideline for Iron for either the MUN or the COLD beneficial uses. 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 six samples exceeded the guideline for Iron and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 98135 | ||||
Pollutant: | Iron | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB6 Monitoring data for Carson River, East Fork to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Iron. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for the SWAMP RWB6 Monitoring (tissue and water). | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region?s Objective for Municipal and Domestic Supply uses of inland surface waters states that waters designated as MUN shall not contain concentrations of chemical constituents in excess of the maximum contaminant level (MCL) or secondary maximum contaminant level (SMCL). This is based upon drinking water standards specified in the following provisions of Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations which are incorporated by reference into the Water Quality Control Plan: Table 64431-A of Section 64431 (Inorganic Chemicals), Table 64431-B of Section 64431 (Fluoride), Table 64444-A of Section 64444 (Organic Chemicals), Table 64449-A of Section 64449 (Secondary Maximum Contaminant Levels-Ranges). The maximum contaminant level listed in Table 64449-A for Iron is 0.3 mg/L. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site(s) (632ECR005) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-10-20 and 2011-07-20 | ||||
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: | 44267 | ||||
Pollutant: | Iron | ||||
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 data for Carson River, East Fork to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Iron. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB6 Trend Monitoring CY2006 CY2007 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Lahontan Region). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The Red Book states that based on field observations principally, a criterion of 1.0 mg/L iron for freshwater aquatic life is believed to be adequately protective (National Recommended Water Quality Criteria 2009). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Office of Science and Technology | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Carson River, East Fork was collected at 1 monitoring site [ East Fork Carson, at USGS gage blw Markleeville] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 8/2/2007-11/6/2007. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | 2002 QAMP (Quality Assurance Management Plan) for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 44285 | ||||
Pollutant: | Iron | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
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 data for Carson River, East Fork to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Iron. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB6 Trend Monitoring CY2006 CY2007 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region's Objective for Municipal and Domestic Supply uses of inland surface waters states that waters designated as MUN shall not contain concentrations of chemical constituents in excess of the maximum contaminant level (MCL) or secondary maximum contaminant level (SMCL). This is based upon drinking water standards specified in the following provisions of Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations which are incorporated by reference into the Water Quality Control Plan: Table 64431-A of Section 64431 (Inorganic Chemicals), Table 64431-B of Section 64431 (Fluoride), Table 64444-A of Section 64444 (Organic Chemicals), Table 64449-A of Section 64449 (Secondary Maximum Contaminant Levels-Ranges). The maximum contaminant level listed in Table 64449-A for Iron is 0.3 mg/L. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Carson River, East Fork was collected at 1 monitoring site [ East Fork Carson, at USGS gage blw Markleeville] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 8/2/2007-11/6/2007. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | 2002 QAMP (Quality Assurance Management Plan) for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 98136 | ||||
Pollutant: | Iron | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB6 Monitoring data for Carson River, East Fork to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Iron. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for the SWAMP RWB6 Monitoring (tissue and water). | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Lahontan Region). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The Red Book states that based on field observations principally, a criterion of 1.0 mg/L iron for freshwater aquatic life is believed to be adequately protective. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Quality Criteria for Water. USEPA Office of Water and Hazardous Materials. Washington, D.C | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site(s) (632ECR005) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-10-20 and 2011-07-20 | ||||
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 |
103251 |
Region 6 |
Carson River, East Fork |
||
Pollutant: | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board 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 that both assess the same single tissue sample for COLD and COMM. Zero of one samples exceed the COLD guideline and zero of one samples exceed the COMM 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. Zero of one samples exceed the COLD guideline and zero of one samples exceed the COMM guideline and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 99381 | ||||
Pollutant: | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
Fraction: | Fish fillet | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP Sportfish Rivers and Streams data for Carson River, East Fork to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows 0 of the 1 samples exceeded the water quality standard for HCH, gamma-. Data were collected for 1 fish species (1 composite(s) of Rainbow Trout each composed of 5 fish per composite). | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP Sportfish Rivers and Streams. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Lindane concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data was collected from 1 station(s) with the station code(s): 632ECR009. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this line of evidence were collected between 2011-08-15 and 2011-08-15 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 99380 | ||||
Pollutant: | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
Fraction: | Fish fillet | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP Sportfish Rivers and Streams data for Carson River, East Fork to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows 0 of the 1 samples exceeded the water quality standard for HCH, gamma-. Data were collected for 1 fish species (1 composite(s) of Rainbow Trout each composed of 5 fish per composite). | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP Sportfish Rivers and Streams. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for lindane in fish tissue is 4.6 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets. (Klasing, S., and R. Brodberg, 2008; OEHHA, 2005) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Air Toxics Hotspots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines. Part ll Technical Support Document for Describing Available Cancer Potency Values. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data was collected from 1 station(s) with the station code(s): 632ECR009. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this line of evidence were collected between 2011-08-15 and 2011-08-15 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
DECISION ID |
104278 |
Region 6 |
Carson River, East Fork |
||
Pollutant: | Mercury |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.11 of the Listing Policy. Under this section when all other listing factors do not result in the listing of a water segment but information indicates non-attainment of standards, a water segment shall be evaluated to determine whether the weight of evidence demonstrates that water quality standard is not attained. If the weight of evidence indicates non-attainment, the water segment shall be placed on the CWA section 303(d) List.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the one samples exceed the objective for mercury in fish tissue. 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 one samples exceeded the objective and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 132901 | ||||
Pollutant: | Mercury | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
Fraction: | Fish fillet | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP Sportfish Rivers and Streams data for Carson River, East Fork to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 1 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Mercury. This LOE contains data only for trophic level 3 fish. The concentration of Mercury in fish collected within the same calendar year, for the same trophic level were averaged into a single sample for comparison with the objective. A total of 5 fish were aggregated into 1 annual averages, which consisted of 1 fish species (1 composite(s) of Rainbow Trout each composed of 5 fish per composite). | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP Sportfish Rivers and Streams. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The Statewide Sport Fish Water Quality Objective for the protection of the Commercial and Sport Fishing beneficial comes from the Statewide Water Quality Control Plan for Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays, and Estuaries of California, and is 0.2 mg/Kg wet weight skinless fillet samples of trophic level 3, or trophic level 4 fish (whichever is highest in the water body) over a one year averaging period. Trophic levels of applicable fish are defined in, but not limited to those in Attachment C of the Final Regulatory Language document (Appendix A) of State Water Resources Control Board Resolution No. 2017-0027. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays, and Estuaries Plan. Part 1: Trash Provisions; Part 2: Tribal Subsistence Beneficial Uses and Mercury Provisions; Part 3: Bacteria Provisions and Variance Policy | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data was collected from 1 station(s) with the station code(s): 632ECR009. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this line of evidence were collected between 2011-08-15 and 2011-08-15 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
DECISION ID |
103252 |
Region 6 |
Carson River, East Fork |
||
Pollutant: | Microcystins |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant that are all based on the same single tissue sample assessed for different forms of microcystin. The sample does not exceed the tissue guideline for any of the microcystin tissue guidelines assessed. 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 one samples exceeded the tissue guideline and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 99242 | ||||
Pollutant: | Microcystin-YR | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
Fraction: | Fish fillet | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP Sportfish Rivers and Streams data for Carson River, East Fork to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows 0 of the 1 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Microcystin-YR. Data were collected for 1 fish species (1 composite(s) of Rainbow Trout each composed of 5 fish per composite). | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP Sportfish Rivers and Streams. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The 10 ng/g wet weight action level for microcystins for edible sport fish and shellfish containing Microcystin-YR identifies the maximum concentration of cyanotoxins that a typical consumer (one meal per week) could ingest without exceeding the reference dose.(OEHHA 2012) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Toxicological Summary and Suggested Action Levels to Reduce Potential Adverse Health Effects of Six Cyanotoxins | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data was collected from 1 station(s) with the station code(s): 632ECR009. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this line of evidence were collected between 2011-08-15 and 2011-08-15 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 99487 | ||||
Pollutant: | Microcystin-RR | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
Fraction: | Fish fillet | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP Sportfish Rivers and Streams data for Carson River, East Fork to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows 0 of the 1 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Microcystin-RR. Data were collected for 1 fish species (1 composite(s) of Rainbow Trout each composed of 5 fish per composite). | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP Sportfish Rivers and Streams. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The 10 ng/g wet weight action level for microcystins for edible sport fish and shellfish containing Microcystin-RR identifies the maximum concentration of cyanotoxins that a typical consumer (one meal per week) could ingest without exceeding the reference dose.(OEHHA 2012) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Toxicological Summary and Suggested Action Levels to Reduce Potential Adverse Health Effects of Six Cyanotoxins | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data was collected from 1 station(s) with the station code(s): 632ECR009. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this line of evidence were collected between 2011-08-15 and 2011-08-15 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 99475 | ||||
Pollutant: | Microcystin-LA | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
Fraction: | Fish fillet | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP Sportfish Rivers and Streams data for Carson River, East Fork to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows 0 of the 1 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Microcystin-LA. Data were collected for 1 fish species (1 composite(s) of Rainbow Trout each composed of 5 fish per composite). | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP Sportfish Rivers and Streams. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The 10 ng/g wet weight action level for microcystins for edible sport fish and shellfish containing Microcystin-LA identifies the maximum concentration of cyanotoxins that a typical consumer (one meal per week) could ingest without exceeding the reference dose.(OEHHA 2012) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Toxicological Summary and Suggested Action Levels to Reduce Potential Adverse Health Effects of Six Cyanotoxins | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data was collected from 1 station(s) with the station code(s): 632ECR009. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this line of evidence were collected between 2011-08-15 and 2011-08-15 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 99481 | ||||
Pollutant: | Microcystin-LR | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
Fraction: | Fish fillet | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP Sportfish Rivers and Streams data for Carson River, East Fork to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows 0 of the 1 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Microcystin-LR. Data were collected for 1 fish species (1 composite(s) of Rainbow Trout each composed of 5 fish per composite). | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP Sportfish Rivers and Streams. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The 10 ng/g wet weight action level for microcystins for edible sport fish and shellfish containing Microcystin-LR identifies the maximum concentration of cyanotoxins that a typical consumer (one meal per week) could ingest without exceeding the reference dose.(OEHHA 2012) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Toxicological Summary and Suggested Action Levels to Reduce Potential Adverse Health Effects of Six Cyanotoxins | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data was collected from 1 station(s) with the station code(s): 632ECR009. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this line of evidence were collected between 2011-08-15 and 2011-08-15 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 99248 | ||||
Pollutant: | Microcystins | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
Fraction: | Fish fillet | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP Sportfish Rivers and Streams data for Carson River, East Fork to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows 0 of the 1 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Microcystins. Data were collected for 1 fish species (1 composite(s) of Rainbow Trout each composed of 5 fish per composite). | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP Sportfish Rivers and Streams. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The 10 ng/g wet weight action level for microcystins for edible sport fish and shellfish containing microcystins identifies the maximum concentration of cyanotoxins that a typical consumer (one meal per week) could ingest without exceeding the reference dose, and is equal to the sum of the Microcystin congeners LA, LR, RR, and LY.(OEHHA 2012) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Toxicological Summary and Suggested Action Levels to Reduce Potential Adverse Health Effects of Six Cyanotoxins | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data was collected from 1 station(s) with the station code(s): 632ECR009. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this line of evidence were collected between 2011-08-15 and 2011-08-15 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
DECISION ID |
103253 |
Region 6 |
Carson River, East Fork |
||
Pollutant: | Mirex |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant that is based on a single tissue sample. Zero of one samples exceed the tissue guideline for mirex. 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 one samples exceeded the guideline and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 99321 | ||||
Pollutant: | Mirex | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
Fraction: | Fish fillet | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Waterboard staff assessed SWAMP Sportfish Rivers and Streams data for Carson River, East Fork to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: Zero of Zero samples exceeded the water quality standard for Mirex. Although data was collected for 1 fish species (1 composite(s) of Rainbow Trout each composed of 5 fish per composite), all 1 sample(s) had to be thrown out due to quantitation issues. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP Sportfish Rivers and Streams. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for mirex in fish tissue is 0.28 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets. (Klasing, S., and R. Brodberg, 2008; OEHHA, 1992) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Expedited Cancer Potency Values and Proposed Regulatory Levels for Certain Proposition 65 Carcinogens. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data was collected from 1 station(s) with the station code(s): 632ECR009. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this line of evidence were collected between 2011-08-15 and 2011-08-15 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
DECISION ID |
71736 |
Region 6 |
Carson River, East Fork |
||
Pollutant: | Nitrate/Nitrite (Nitrite + Nitrate as N) |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of 67 samples exceed the guideline for nitrate/nitrite as N. 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 67 samples exceeded the guideline and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 44308 | ||||
Pollutant: | Nitrate/Nitrite (Nitrite + Nitrate as N) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 31 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Carson River, East Fork to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 31 samples exceed the criterion for Nitrate/Nitrite as N. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB6 Trend Monitoring CY2006 CY2007 | ||||
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: | Data for this line of evidence for Carson River, East Fork was collected at 1 monitoring site [ East Fork Carson, at USGS gage blw Markleeville] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 6/29/2006-11/6/2007. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | 2002 QAMP (Quality Assurance Management Plan) for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 97120 | ||||
Pollutant: | Nitrate/Nitrite (Nitrite + Nitrate as N) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB6 Monitoring data for Carson River, East Fork to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Nitrate + Nitrite as N. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for the SWAMP 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) (632ECR005) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-10-20 and 2010-10-20 | ||||
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: | 21486 | ||||
Pollutant: | Nitrate/Nitrite (Nitrite + Nitrate as N) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 16 | ||||
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 Geological Survey sampled the East Fork Carson River under the Region 6 SWAMP program between 2001 and 2005. One of 16 quarterly samples was an estimated value, and 8 were below the detection level. Concentrations of nitrite plus nitrate in the remaining samples ranged from 0.002 to 0.02 mg/L The MCL was not exceeded. | ||||
Data Reference: | 2007. SWAMP Data for the East Fork and West Fork Carson River Hydrologic Units | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) apply to ambient waters under the Lahontan Basin Plan's "Chemical Constituents" objective. The MCL for nitrite plus nitrate is 10 mg/L. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | One station, East Fork Carson River at USGS Gage below Markleeville, was sampled. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Sixteen quarterly samples were taken between 2001 and 2005. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | The East Fork Carson River is an interstate river with headwaters near the Sierra Nevada crest and its lowest point in California in an area transitional to the Great Basin ecoregion. The "below Markleeville" station is downstream of subwatersheds contributing acid mine drainage, and downstream of Markleeville Creek, which is affected by geothermal drainage.
In addition to the Cold Freshwater Habitat beneficial use, the river is designated for the Spawning, Reproduction and Development and the Rare, Threatened, or Endangered Species uses. The latter use reflects the presence of Lahontan and Paiute cutthroat trout. |
||||
QAPP Information: | The quality assurance requirements of the SWAMP QAPP were met. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 97084 | ||||
Pollutant: | Nitrate/Nitrite (Nitrite + Nitrate as N) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Not Recorded | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 3 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB6 Monitoring data for Carson River, East Fork to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 3 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Nitrate + Nitrite as N. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for the SWAMP RWB6 Monitoring (tissue and water). | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | 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) (632ECR005) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2011-01-27 and 2011-07-20 | ||||
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: | 97240 | ||||
Pollutant: | Nitrate/Nitrite (Nitrite + Nitrate as N) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 16 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB6 Monitoring data for Carson River, East Fork to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 16 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) (632ECR005) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2012-04-09 and 2015-10-26 | ||||
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 |
71181 |
Region 6 |
Carson River, East Fork |
||
Pollutant: | Nitrogen |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of 13 samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfy the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used do not satisfy the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. Quarterly samples do not capture the seasonal and annual variability expected in streamflows and constituent concentrations in streams of the Lahontan Region. 3. 0 of 13 samples exceeded the site-specific objective and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples are needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 96255 | ||||
Pollutant: | Nitrogen | ||||
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: | Data were collected by Lahontan field staff as part of routine regional monitoring, beginning in 2010 through 2015. 6 annual averages were computed from the data, ranging from 0.04 mg/L to 0.091 mg/L. No annual averages exceeded the water quality objective for this waterbody. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for the SWAMP RWB6 Monitoring (tissue and water). | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The site-specific objective for nitrogen in the Carson River, East Fork, as referenced in the Lahontan Basin Plan table 3-14, states that the annual average shall not exceed 0.2 mg/L. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected at one site, 632ECR005, located at the USGS gauging station approx. 1.5 miles south of the town of Markleeville. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data were collected 19 times between October 2010 and October 2015 in a predominantly quarterly fashion. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | The East Fork Carson River is an interstate river with headwaters near the Sierra Nevada crest. Its lowest point in California in an area transitional to the Great Basin ecoregion. The "below Markleeville" station is downstream of subwatersheds contributing acid mine drainage, and downstream of Markleeville Creek, which is affected by geothermal drainage. In addition to the Cold Freshwater Habitat beneficial use, the river is designated for the Spawning, Reproduction and Development and the Rare, Threatened, or Endangered Species uses. The latter use reflects the presence of Lahontan and Paiute cutthroat trout. | ||||
QAPP Information: | Data were collected under 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: | 21497 | ||||
Pollutant: | Total Nitrogen as N | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | The U.S Geological Survey sampled total nitrogen under the Region 6 SWAMP program between 2001 and 2005. Concentrations in 9 of 16 quarterly samples were estimated values. The remainder of the samples ranged from 0.063 to 0.15 mg/L. Numerical annual averages could not be calculated for 2001 through 2004 due to the estimated values. The annual average objective was not exceeded. | ||||
Data Reference: | 2007. SWAMP Data for the East Fork and West Fork Carson River Hydrologic Units | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The site-specific objective for total nitrogen in the East Fork Carson River includes an annual average of 0.20 mg/L and an annual 90th percentile value of 0.30 mg/L. See Lahontan Basin Plan Table 3-14. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | One station, East Fork Carson River at USGS Gage below Markleeville, was sampled. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Sixteen quarterly samples were collected between 2001 and 2005.. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | The East Fork Carson River is an interstate river with headwaters near the Sierra Nevada crest and its lowest point in California in an area transitional to the Great Basin ecoregion. The "below Markleeville" station is downstream of subwatersheds contributing acid mine drainage, and downstream of Markleeville Creek, which is affected by geothermal drainage.
In addition to the Cold Freshwater Habitat beneficial use, the river is designated for the Spawning, Reproduction and Development and the Rare, Threatened, or Endangered Species uses. The latter use reflects the presence of Lahontan and Paiute cutthroat trout. |
||||
QAPP Information: | The quality assurance requirements of the SWAMP QAPP were met. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 32328 | ||||
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: | None of 2 annual averages exceeded the water quality objective for total nitrogen. Annual averages were calculated by water year starting in June 2006 through November 2007. Total nitrogen was calculated by summing nitrate + nitrite as N data with TKN data when they were collected on the same day. Thirty-one pairs were summed and then averaged before comparing with the annual objective. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB6 Trend Monitoring CY2006 CY2007 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Table 3-14 of the Basin Plan states that the water quality objective for nitrogen, total for East Fork Carson River is an annual average objective of 0.2 mg/L. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected at East Fork Carson, at USGS gage blw Markleeville (632ECR005). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected from June 2006 through November 2007. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | 2002 QAMP (Quality Assurance Management Plan) for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
79660 |
Region 6 |
Carson River, East Fork |
||
Pollutant: | Nitrogen, Nitrite |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the 31 samples exceed the water quality objective (MCL of 1 mg/L for nitrite as N). Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 31 samples exceeded the objective (MCL) and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 44328 | ||||
Pollutant: | Nitrite as Nitrite NO2 | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 31 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Carson River, East Fork to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 31 samples exceed the criterion for Nitrite as N. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB6 Trend Monitoring CY2006 CY2007 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan, Lahontan Basin, Objective for Municipal and Domestic Supply uses of inland surface waters states the following: waters shall not contain concentrations of inorganic chemicals in excess of the limits specified in California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Table 64431-A of section 64431 (Inorganic Chemicals). The maximum contaminant level listed in Table 64431-A for Nitrite as N is 1.0 mg/L. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Carson River, East Fork was collected at 1 monitoring site [ East Fork Carson, at USGS gage blw Markleeville] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 6/29/2006-11/6/2007. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | 2002 QAMP (Quality Assurance Management Plan) for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
103254 |
Region 6 |
Carson River, East Fork |
||
Pollutant: | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board 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 that are both based on the same single tissue sample assessed for COLD and COMM. Zero of one samples exceed the COMM guideline and zero of one samples exceed the COLD guideline for PCBs. 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 one samples exceed the COMM guideline and zero of one samples exceed the COLD guideline and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 99272 | ||||
Pollutant: | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
Fraction: | Fish fillet | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP Sportfish Rivers and Streams data for Carson River, East Fork to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows 0 of the 1 samples exceeded the water quality standard for PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls). Data were collected for 1 fish species (1 composite(s) of Rainbow Trout each composed of 5 fish per composite). | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP Sportfish Rivers and Streams. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum total PCB concentration of 500 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data was collected from 1 station(s) with the station code(s): 632ECR009. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this line of evidence were collected between 2011-08-15 and 2011-08-15 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 99225 | ||||
Pollutant: | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
Fraction: | Fish fillet | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP Sportfish Rivers and Streams data for Carson River, East Fork to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows 0 of the 1 samples exceeded the water quality standard for PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls). Data were collected for 1 fish species (1 composite(s) of Rainbow Trout each composed of 5 fish per composite). | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for SWAMP Sportfish Rivers and Streams. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for polychlorinated biphenyls in fish tissue is 2.6 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets. (Klasing, S., and R. Brodberg, 2008) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data was collected from 1 station(s) with the station code(s): 632ECR009. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this line of evidence were collected between 2011-08-15 and 2011-08-15 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
DECISION ID |
101896 |
Region 6 |
Carson River, East Fork |
||
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 that are based on the same data set assessed for different beneficial uses. Zero of the 20 samples exceed the guideline for MUN and zero of the 20 samples exceed the guideline for AGR. 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 20 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: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 97145 | ||||
Pollutant: | Sodium | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Agricultural Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 20 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB6 Monitoring data for Carson River, East Fork to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 20 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Sodium. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for the SWAMP RWB6 Monitoring (tissue and water). | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | 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) (632ECR005) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-10-20 and 2015-10-26 | ||||
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: | 98169 | ||||
Pollutant: | Sodium | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 20 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB6 Monitoring data for Carson River, East Fork to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 20 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Sodium. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for the SWAMP RWB6 Monitoring (tissue and water). | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | 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) (632ECR005) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-10-20 and 2015-10-26 | ||||
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 |
78814 |
Region 6 |
Carson River, East Fork |
||
Pollutant: | Sodium Adsorption Ratio (SAR) |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Two line of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 1 of 7 samples exceeds the water quality objective. The one exceeding data point calculated during the previous assessment cycle may have been calculated incorrectly. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfy the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 1 of 7 samples exceeded the site specific objective and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 26 samples is needed for application of table 3.2 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 133522 | ||||
Pollutant: | Sodium Adsorption Ratio (SAR) | ||||
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: | Data were collected by the Region 6 SWAMP program in quarterly fashion from 2010 to 2015. SAR ratios ranged from 0.28 to 0.70. No SAR annual average exceeded the objective. 2 samples from each analyte were thrown out in 2011 because of hold time violations. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for the SWAMP RWB6 Monitoring (tissue and water). | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The objective for Sodium Absorption Ratio (SAR) in the East Fork of the Carson River, as stipulated in the Lahontan Basin Plan 3-11, is a ratio not to exceed 2. SAR is calculated as Na/Sqrt((Ca+Mg)/2 in annual average fashion, and the formula uses milliequivalent (mEq) concentrations of each ion. To calculate mEq, the formula is (ion mg/L / molar mass)*valence. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from one station, 632ECR005, located at the USGS gauge below the town of Markleeville. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data were collected in quarterly fashion between 2010 and 2015. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Data were collected in accordance with the SWAMP QAPP. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 32275 | ||||
Pollutant: | Sodium Adsorption Ratio (SAR) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Agricultural Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | The annual average for year 2007 was 3.28 and does exceed the water quality objective. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB6 Trend Monitoring CY2006 CY2007 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The applicable site specific water quality objective from the amended Lahontan Basin Plan for the East Fork Carson River states that the annual average SAR (sodium adsorption rate) should not exceed 2. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | 2006. Amendments to the Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region: Revised Sodium-Related Standards for the Carson and Walker River Watersheds. Adopted October 12, 2006 under Resolution R6T-2006-0047 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected at the following station: 632ECR005 - East Fork Carson, at USGS gage blw Markleeville. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected during August 2007 and November 2007. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | 2002 QAMP (Quality Assurance Management Plan) for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
69568 |
Region 6 |
Carson River, East Fork |
||
Pollutant: | Specific Conductivity |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the 73 samples exceed the MUN guideline for specific conductance. 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 73 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 because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 97205 | ||||
Pollutant: | Specific Conductivity | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 26 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB6 Monitoring data for Carson River, East Fork to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 26 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) (632ECR005) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-08-31 and 2015-10-26 | ||||
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: | 44378 | ||||
Pollutant: | Specific Conductivity | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 31 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Carson River, East Fork to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 31 samples exceed the criterion for Conductivity(Us). | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB6 Trend Monitoring CY2006 CY2007 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The California Secondary MCL that is incorporated by reference in the Water Quality Control Plan, Lahontan Region for specific conductance is 900 uS/cm (Water Quality Control Plan, Lahontan Region). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Carson River, East Fork was collected at 1 monitoring site [ East Fork Carson, at USGS gage blw Markleeville] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 1/10/2007-12/27/2007. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | 2002 QAMP (Quality Assurance Management Plan) for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 4905 | ||||
Pollutant: | Specific Conductance | ||||
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: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | The U.S Geological Survey measured specific conductance under the Region 6 SWAMP program between 2001 and 2005. In 16 field measurements, specific conductance ranged from 48 to 168 uS/cm. The MCL was not exceeded. | ||||
Data Reference: | 2007. SWAMP Data for the East Fork and West Fork Carson River Hydrologic Units | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) apply to ambient waters under the Lahontan Basin Plan's "Chemical Constituents" objective. The MCL for specific conductance is 900 microsiemens per centimeter (uS/cm). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | One station, East Fork Carson River at USGS Gage below Markleeville, was sampled. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Sixteen measurements of specific conductance were taken over 5 years (2001 to 2005). | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | The East Fork Carson River is an interstate river with headwaters near the Sierra Nevada crest and its lowest point in California in an area transitional to the Great Basin ecoregion. The "below Markleeville" station is downstream of subwatersheds contributing acid mine drainage, and downstream of Markleeville Creek, which is affected by geothermal drainage.
In addition to the Cold Freshwater Habitat beneficial use, the river is designated for the Spawning, Reproduction and Development and the Rare, Threatened, or Endangered Species uses. The latter use reflects the presence of Lahontan and Paiute cutthroat trout. |
||||
QAPP Information: | The quality assurance requirements of the SWAMP QAPP were met. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
72270 |
Region 6 |
Carson River, East Fork |
||
Pollutant: | pH |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the 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, two that assess for MUN and four that assess for COLD.The Basin Plan pH objective requires background data that is unavailable, consequently the pH data cannot be assessed. All the lines of evidence show zero of zero 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. Zero of zero 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: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 4898 | ||||
Pollutant: | pH | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 15 | ||||
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 Geological Survey sampled pH under the Region 6 SWAMP program between 2002 and 2005. In 15 field samples, pH ranged from 7.7 to 8.3 units. | ||||
Data Reference: | 2007. SWAMP Data for the East Fork and West Fork Carson River Hydrologic Units | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The objective for pH in the Lahontan Basin Plan states:
"In fresh waters with designated beneficial uses of COLD or WARM, changes in normal ambient pH levels shall not exceed 0.5 pH units. For all other waters of the region, the pH shall not be depressed below 6.5 nor raised above 8.5 units. The Regional Board recognizes that some waters of the Region may have natural pH levels outside of the 6.5 to 8.5 range. Compliance with the pH objective for these waters will be determined on a case-by-case basis." |
||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | One station, East Fork Carson River at USGS Gage below Markleeville, was sampled. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Fifteen pH measurements were taken over 4 years (2002 to 2005). | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | The East Fork Carson River is an interstate river with headwaters near the Sierra Nevada crest and its lowest point in California in an area transitional to the Great Basin ecoregion. The "below Markleeville" station is downstream of subwatersheds contributing acid mine drainage, and downstream of Markleeville Creek, which is affected by geothermal drainage.
In addition to the Cold Freshwater Habitat beneficial use, the river is designated for the Spawning, Reproduction and Development and the Rare, Threatened, or Endangered Species uses. The latter use reflects the presence of Lahontan and Paiute cutthroat trout. |
||||
QAPP Information: | The quality assurance requirements of the SWAMP QAPP were met. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 129754 | ||||
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) (632ECR005) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-08-31 and 2015-10-26 | ||||
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: | 129581 | ||||
Pollutant: | pH | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | 0 of 0 samples exceeded the water quality standard for pH. Although pH data does exist for this waterbody, the objective for this pollutant requires background information that is currently unavailable, and therefore an assessment of water quality standards could not be made. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for Alpine Watershed Group Monitoring Program. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Lahontan Basin Plan's regionwide objective for pH states: \In fresh waters with designated beneficial uses of COLD or WARM, changes in normal ambient pH levels shall not exceed 0.5 pH units. For all other waters of the region, the pH shall not be depressed below 6.5 nor raised above 8.5 units. The Regional Board recognizes that some waters of the Region may have natural pH levels outside of the 6.5 to 8.5 range. Compliance with the pH objective for these waters will be determined on a case-by-case basis.\"" | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site(s) (EF-HANG) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-09-11 and 2017-03-11 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Alpine Watershed Group Volunteer Citizen Water Quality Monitoring Program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Alpine Watershed Group Volunteer Citizen Water Quality Monitoring Program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 129744 | ||||
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) (632ECR005) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-08-31 and 2015-10-26 | ||||
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: | 129775 | ||||
Pollutant: | pH | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | 0 of 0 samples exceeded the water quality standard for pH. Although pH data does exist for this waterbody, the objective for this pollutant requires background information that is currently unavailable, and therefore an assessment of water quality standards could not be made. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for Alpine Watershed Group Monitoring Program. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Lahontan Basin Plan's regionwide objective for pH states: \In fresh waters with designated beneficial uses of COLD or WARM, changes in normal ambient pH levels shall not exceed 0.5 pH units. For all other waters of the region, the pH shall not be depressed below 6.5 nor raised above 8.5 units. The Regional Board recognizes that some waters of the Region may have natural pH levels outside of the 6.5 to 8.5 range. Compliance with the pH objective for these waters will be determined on a case-by-case basis.\"" | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site(s) (EF-HANG) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-09-11 and 2017-03-11 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Alpine Watershed Group Volunteer Citizen Water Quality Monitoring Program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Alpine Watershed Group Volunteer Citizen Water Quality Monitoring Program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 32259 | ||||
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: | There were 21 samples with pH ranging from 7.7 to 8.9. The normal ambient pH level for this water body is unknown and so it is unknown whether any exceedences occurred. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB6 Trend Monitoring CY2006 CY2007 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The applicable objective states: "In fresh waters with designated beneficial uses of COLD or WARM, changes in normal ambient pH levels shall not exceed 0.5 pH units." (Lahontan Basin Plan). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected at Station 632ECR005 - East Fork Carson, at USGS gage blw Markleeville. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected between 1/10/2007 and 12/27/2007. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | 2002 QAMP (Quality Assurance Management Plan) for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
72820 |
Region 6 |
Carson River, East Fork |
||
Pollutant: | Indicator Bacteria |
Final Listing Decision: | List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Sources: | A Source Unknown |
Expected TMDL Completion Date: | 2031 |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Eleven lines of evidence, four which evaluate E. coli data against the REC-1 beneficial use, four which evaluate fecal coliform data against the MUN beneficial use and three from a previous cycle which evaluate the now-superseded fecal coliform objective data against the REC-1 beneficial use, are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The weight of E.coli data indicates that the REC-1 beneficial use is protected as 0 of 104 total samples exceed the water quality objective. Fecal coliform data was assessed against the REC-1 beneficial use during a previous assessment cycle, and while the data is insufficient to make conclusions with certainty, 1 of 17 samples exceed the now-superseded water quality objective and the weight of evidence suggests that the REC-1 beneficial use is protected. Fecal coliform data was also assessed against the MUN beneficial use. 21 of 108 samples exceed the objective in the geomean assessment, and 3 of 29 samples exceed the STV assessment. Fecal coliform geomean data exceed the allowable frequency of the listing policy. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification for placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfy the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfy the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 21 of 108 fecal coliform geometric mean samples exceeded the water quality objective the the MUN beneficial use as stipulated in the Lahontan Basin Plan. This exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are exceeded and a pollutant contributes to or causes the problem. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 21495 | ||||
Pollutant: | Fecal Coliform | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Water Contact Recreation | ||||
Number of Samples: | 7 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Water column surveys (e.g. fecal coliform) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | The U.S Geological Survey sampled the East Fork Carson River under the Region 6 SWAMP program between 2003 and 2005. Six of 7 fecal coliform samples had estimated bacteria counts, and the seventh was reported as greater than 240 colonies per 100 mL, exceeding the objective. | ||||
Data Reference: | 2007. SWAMP Data for the East Fork and West Fork Carson River Hydrologic Units | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Lahontan Basin Plan's objective for coliform bacteria states: "Waters shall not contain concentrations of coliform organisms attributable to anthropogenic sources, including human and livestock wastes. The fecal coliform concentration during any 30-day period shall not exceed a log mean of 20/100 ml, nor shall more than 10 percent of all samples collected during any 30-day period exceed 40/100 ml. The log mean shall ideally be based on a minimum of not less than five samples collected as evenly spaced as practicable during any 30-day period. However, a log mean concentration exceeding 20/100 ml for any 30-day period shall indicate violation of this objective even if fewer than five samples were collected." | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | One station, East Fork Carson River at USGS Gage below Markleeville, was sampled. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seven samples (1 to 4 per year) were taken between 2003 and 2005. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | The East Fork Carson River is an interstate river with headwaters near the Sierra Nevada crest and its lowest point in California in an area transitional to the Great Basin ecoregion. The "below Markleeville" station is downstream of subwatersheds contributing acid mine drainage, and downstream of Markleeville Creek, which is affected by geothermal drainage.
In addition to the Cold Freshwater Habitat beneficial use, the river is designated for the Spawning, Reproduction and Development and the Rare, Threatened, or Endangered Species uses. The latter use reflects the presence of Lahontan and Paiute cutthroat trout. |
||||
QAPP Information: | The quality assurance requirements of the SWAMP QAPP were met. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 96921 | ||||
Pollutant: | Escherichia coli (E. coli) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | GeoMean | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Water Contact Recreation | ||||
Number of Samples: | 11 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PATHOGEN MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Data were collected by Lahontan staff for the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) RWB6 Monitoring program, and for a supplemental TMDL Integrated Report Special Study. The TMDL Special Study was developed by Lahontan Planning and SWAMP staff to provide additional data to the quarterly SWAMP monitoring. The purpose was to gain a better temporal understanding of levels of specific pollutants in the waterbody. To ensure the two datasets could be viably analyzed as one, the TMDL Special Study followed the same sampling protocol as SWAMP. Accordingly, the two datasets have been combined for this assessment to reflect the intended design and to best characterize conditions in the watershed. Water Board staff determined beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 11 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 2 monitoring sites, stations: 632ECR005, 632ECRB10 | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the days of 2011-06-09 and 2016-22-12 . | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | The East Fork Carson River is an interstate river with headwaters near the Sierra Nevada crest and its lowest point in California in an area transitional to the Great Basin ecoregion. The "below Markleeville" station is downstream of subwatersheds contributing acid mine drainage, and downstream of Markleeville Creek, which is affected by geothermal drainage. In addition to the Cold Freshwater Habitat beneficial use, the river is designated for the Spawning, Reproduction and Development and the Rare, Threatened, or Endangered Species uses. The latter use reflects the presence of Lahontan and Paiute cutthroat trout. | ||||
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: | 32256 | ||||
Pollutant: | Fecal Coliform | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Water Contact Recreation | ||||
Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Not Specified | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Zero of the five samples exceeded the Fecal Coliform objective. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB6 Trend Monitoring CY2006 CY2007 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The fecal coliform concentration shall not exceed more than 40/100 ml. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected from station 632ECR005 East Fork Carson, at USGS gage below Markleeville. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected once a month from August to December 2007. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | 2002 QAMP (Quality Assurance Management Plan) for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 34862 | ||||
Pollutant: | Fecal Coliform | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Water Contact Recreation | ||||
Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Not Specified | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Zero of the five samples exceeded the fecal coliform objective. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB6 Trend Monitoring CY2006 CY2007 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The fecal coliform concentration during any 30-day period shall not exceed a log mean of 20/100 ml. Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected from station 632ECR005 East Fork Carson, at USGS gage below Markleeville. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected once a month from August to December 2007. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | 2002 QAMP (Quality Assurance Management Plan) for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 21493 | ||||
Pollutant: | Fecal Coliform | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 7 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Water column surveys (e.g. fecal coliform) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | The U.S Geological Survey sampled the East Fork Carson River under the Region 6 SWAMP program between 2003 and 2005. Six of 7 fecal coliform samples had estimated bacteria counts, and the seventh was reported as greater than 240 colonies per 100 mL, exceeding the objective. | ||||
Data Reference: | 2007. SWAMP Data for the East Fork and West Fork Carson River Hydrologic Units | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Lahontan Basin Plan's objective for coliform bacteria states: "Waters shall not contain concentrations of coliform organisms attributable to anthropogenic sources, including human and livestock wastes. The fecal coliform concentration during any 30-day period shall not exceed a log mean of 20/100 ml, nor shall more than 10 percent of all samples collected during any 30-day period exceed 40/100 ml. The log mean shall ideally be based on a minimum of not less than five samples collected as evenly spaced as practicable during any 30-day period. However, a log mean concentration exceeding 20/100 ml for any 30-day period shall indicate violation of this objective even if fewer than five samples were collected." | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | One station, East Fork Carson River at USGS Gage below Markleeville, was sampled. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seven samples (1 to 4 per year) were taken between 2003 and 2005. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | The East Fork Carson River is an interstate river with headwaters near the Sierra Nevada crest and its lowest point in California in an area transitional to the Great Basin ecoregion. The "below Markleeville" station is downstream of subwatersheds contributing acid mine drainage, and downstream of Markleeville Creek, which is affected by geothermal drainage.
In addition to the Cold Freshwater Habitat beneficial use, the river is designated for the Spawning, Reproduction and Development and the Rare, Threatened, or Endangered Species uses. The latter use reflects the presence of Lahontan and Paiute cutthroat trout. |
||||
QAPP Information: | The quality assurance requirements of the SWAMP QAPP were met. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 129222 | ||||
Pollutant: | Fecal Coliform | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 60 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 9 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PATHOGEN MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed RWB6_BACT_Monitoring data for Carson River, East Fork to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 9 of the 60 samples exceeded the logmean water quality standard for Coliform, Fecal. This is a 30-day rolling logmean that is calculated daily. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for Regional Water Board 6 Bacteria Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Waters shall not contain concentrations of coliform organisms attributable to anthropogenic sources, including human and livestock wastes. The fecal coliform concentration during any 30-day period shall not exceed a log mean of 20/100 ml. (Lahontan Region Basin Plan) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 5 monitoring site(s), station(s): 632ECR005, 632ECRB10, 632ECRB20, 632ECRB30, 632ECRB40 | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the days of 2013-07-19 and 2016-09-28 . | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 129331 | ||||
Pollutant: | Fecal Coliform | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 29 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 3 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PATHOGEN MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed RWB6_BACT_Monitoring data for Carson River, East Fork to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 3 of the 29 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Coliform, Fecal. The water quality standard is based on a 10% exceedance rate that is calculated monthly. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for Regional Water Board 6 Bacteria Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Waters shall not contain concentrations of coliform organisms attributable to anthropogenic sources, including human and livestock wastes. The fecal coliform concentration during any 30-day period shall not exceed a log mean of 20/100 ml, nor shall more than 10 percent of all samples collected during any 30-day period exceed 40/100 ml. (Lahontan Region Basin Plan) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 5 monitoring site(s), station(s): 632ECR005, 632ECRB10, 632ECRB20, 632ECRB30, 632ECRB40 | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the days of 2013-07-19 and 2016-09-28 . | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 96943 | ||||
Pollutant: | Fecal Coliform | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | GeoMean | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 41 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 11 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PATHOGEN MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Data were collected by Lahontan staff for the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) RWB6 Monitoring program, and for a supplemental TMDL Integrated Report Special Study. The TMDL Special Study was developed by Lahontan Planning and SWAMP staff to provide additional data to the quarterly SWAMP monitoring. The purpose was to gain a better temporal understanding of levels of specific pollutants in the waterbody. To ensure the two datasets could be viably analyzed as one, the TMDL Special Study followed the same sampling protocol as SWAMP. Accordingly, the two datasets have been combined for this assessment to reflect the intended design and to best characterize conditions in the watershed. 41 geomeans could be computed from the raw data, 11 of which exceeded the water quality objective of 20CFU/100mL. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for the SWAMP RWB6 Monitoring (tissue and water). | ||||
Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for the TMDL Integrated Report Special Study. | |||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Lahontan Basin Plan's objective for coliform bacteria states: "Waters shall not contain concentrations of coliform organisms attributable to anthropogenic sources, including human and livestock wastes. The fecal coliform concentration during any 30-day period shall not exceed a log mean of 20/100 ml, nor shall more than 10 percent of all samples collected during any 30-day period exceed 40/100 ml. The log mean shall ideally be based on a minimum of not less than five samples collected as evenly spaced as practicable during any 30-day period. However, a log mean concentration exceeding 20/100 ml for any 30-day period shall indicate violation of this objective even if fewer than five samples were collected." | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from two sites, stations: 632ECR005, 632ECRB10 | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data were collected between days 2011-27-1 and 2016-22-12 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | The East Fork Carson River is an interstate river with headwaters near the Sierra Nevada crest and its lowest point in California in an area transitional to the Great Basin ecoregion. The "below Markleeville" station is downstream of subwatersheds contributing acid mine drainage, and downstream of Markleeville Creek, which is affected by geothermal drainage. In addition to the Cold Freshwater Habitat beneficial use, the river is designated for the Spawning, Reproduction and Development and the Rare, Threatened, or Endangered Species uses. The latter use reflects the presence of Lahontan and Paiute cutthroat trout. | ||||
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: | 100023 | ||||
Pollutant: | Escherichia coli (E. coli) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Water Contact Recreation | ||||
Number of Samples: | 30 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PATHOGEN MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed RWB6_BACT_Monitoring data for Carson River, East Fork to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 30 samples exceeded the Statistical Threshold Value (STV) water quality standard for E. coli. The STV is based on a 10% exceedance rate that is calculated monthly. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for Regional Water Board 6 Bacteria Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The bacteria water quality objective applicable to all waters, except Lake Tahoe, where the salinity is less than 10 parts per thousand (ppth) 95 percent or more of the time is a STATISTICAL THRESHOLD VALUE (STV) of 320 cfu/100 mL not to be exceeded more than 10 percent of the time (calculated monthly). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays, and Estuaries Plan. Part 1: Trash Provisions; Part 2: Tribal Subsistence Beneficial Uses and Mercury Provisions; Part 3: Bacteria Provisions and Variance Policy | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 5 monitoring site(s), station(s): 632ECR005, 632ECRB10, 632ECRB20, 632ECRB30, 632ECRB40 | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the days of 2013-07-19 and 2016-09-28 . | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 99669 | ||||
Pollutant: | Escherichia coli (E. coli) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Water Contact Recreation | ||||
Number of Samples: | 33 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PATHOGEN MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed RWB6_BACT_Monitoring data for Carson River, East Fork to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 33 samples exceeded the geomean water quality standard for E. coli. This is a six week rolling geomean that is calculated weekly. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for Regional Water Board 6 Bacteria Monitoring. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The bacteria water quality objective applicable to all waters, except Lake Tahoe, where the salinity is less than 10 parts per thousand (ppth) 95 percent or more of the time is a six-week rolling GEOMETRIC MEAN (GM) of Escherichia coli (E. coli) not to exceed 100 colony forming units per 100 milliliters (cfu/100 mL) (calculated weekly). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays, and Estuaries Plan. Part 1: Trash Provisions; Part 2: Tribal Subsistence Beneficial Uses and Mercury Provisions; Part 3: Bacteria Provisions and Variance Policy | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 5 monitoring site(s), station(s): 632ECR005, 632ECRB10, 632ECRB20, 632ECRB30, 632ECRB40 | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the days of 2013-07-19 and 2016-09-28 . | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 96926 | ||||
Pollutant: | Escherichia coli (E. coli) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Statistical Threshold Value | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Water Contact Recreation | ||||
Number of Samples: | 29 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PATHOGEN MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Data were collected by Lahontan staff for the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) RWB6 Monitoring program, and for a supplemental TMDL Integrated Report Special Study. The TMDL Special Study was developed by Lahontan Planning and SWAMP staff to provide additional data to the quarterly SWAMP monitoring. The purpose was to gain a better temporal understanding of levels of specific pollutants in the waterbody. To ensure the two datasets could be viably analyzed as one, the TMDL Special Study followed the same sampling protocol as SWAMP. Accordingly, the two datasets have been combined for this assessment to reflect the intended design and to best characterize conditions in the watershed. Water Board staff determined beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 29 samples exceeded 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 2 monitoring sites, stations: 632ECR005, 632ECRB10 | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the days of 2011-06-09 and 2016-22-12 . | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | The East Fork Carson River is an interstate river with headwaters near the Sierra Nevada crest and its lowest point in California in an area transitional to the Great Basin ecoregion. The "below Markleeville" station is downstream of subwatersheds contributing acid mine drainage, and downstream of Markleeville Creek, which is affected by geothermal drainage. In addition to the Cold Freshwater Habitat beneficial use, the river is designated for the Spawning, Reproduction and Development and the Rare, Threatened, or Endangered Species uses. The latter use reflects the presence of Lahontan and Paiute cutthroat trout. | ||||
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 |
70496 |
Region 6 |
Carson River, East Fork |
||
Pollutant: | Oxygen, Dissolved |
Final Listing Decision: | List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Sources: | A Source Unknown |
Expected TMDL Completion Date: | 2031 |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant, two that assess for dissolved oxygen saturation and four that assess for concentration. Six of 35 samples exceed the saturation objective and zero of 58 samples exceed the concentration 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. Six of 35 samples exceed the saturation objective and zero of 58 samples exceed the concentration 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 be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are exceeded and a pollutant contributes to or causes the problem. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 32272 | ||||
Pollutant: | Oxygen, Dissolved | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Zero of 5 samples exceeded the water quality objective. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB6 Trend Monitoring CY2006 CY2007 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The applicable site specific water quality objective from p. 3-9 of the Lahontan Basin Plan for the East Fork Carson River Hydrologic Unit states that the dissolved oxygen concentration shall not be below 7.0 mg/L at any time. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected at the following station: 632ECR005 - East Fork Carson, at USGS gage blw Markleeville. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected between August and December 2007 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | 2002 QAMP (Quality Assurance Management Plan) for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 44398 | ||||
Pollutant: | Dissolved oxygen saturation | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 2 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Carson River, East Fork to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 2 of 4 samples exceed the criterion for Oxygen, Saturation. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB6 Trend Monitoring CY2006 CY2007 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region's water quality objective states that the dissolved oxygen concentration shall not be less than 80 percent of saturation. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Carson River, East Fork was collected at 1 monitoring site [ East Fork Carson, at USGS gage blw Markleeville] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 8/2/2007-12/27/2007. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | 2002 QAMP (Quality Assurance Management Plan) for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 5728 | ||||
Pollutant: | Dissolved oxygen saturation | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 14 | ||||
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 Geological Survey sampled dissolved oxygen under the Region 6 SWAMP program between January 2002 and August 2005. Percent saturation values in 14 quarterly samples ranged from 98 to 130 percent. The objective was not violated. However, sampling frequency was insufficient to define the natural percent saturation regime or to detect change. | ||||
Data Reference: | 2007. SWAMP Data for the East Fork and West Fork Carson River Hydrologic Units | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Lahontan Basin Plan's regionwide narrative objective for dissolved oxygen provides that percent saturation shall not be depressed more than 10 percent nor shall the minimum dissolved oxygen concentration be less than 80 percent of saturation. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | One station, East Fork Carson River at USGS gage below Markleeville, was sampled. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Fourteen quarterly measurements of percent saturation were taken over 4 years (2002 to 2005). | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | The East Fork Carson River is an interstate river with headwaters near the Sierra Nevada crest and its lowest point in California in an area transitional to the Great Basin ecoregion. The "below Markleeville" station is downstream of subwatersheds contributing acid mine drainage, and downstream of Markleeville Creek, which is affected by geothermal drainage.
In addition to the Cold Freshwater Habitat beneficial use, the river is designated for the Spawning, Reproduction and Development and the Rare, Threatened, or Endangered Species uses. The latter use reflects the presence of Lahontan and Paiute cutthroat trout. |
||||
QAPP Information: | The quality assurance requirements of the SWAMP QAPP were met. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 130071 | ||||
Pollutant: | Oxygen, Dissolved | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 22 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Alpine Watershed Group Monitoring Program data for Carson River, East Fork to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 22 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Oxygen, Dissolved. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for Alpine Watershed Group Monitoring Program. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | For waters with the beneficial uses of COLD, COLD with SPWN, WARM, and WARM with SPWN, the minimum dissolved oxygen concentration shall not be less than that specified in Table 3-6. (Water Quality Control Plan, Lahontan Region) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site(s) (EF-HANG) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-09-11 and 2017-03-11 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Alpine Watershed Group Volunteer Citizen Water Quality Monitoring Program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Alpine Watershed Group Volunteer Citizen Water Quality Monitoring Program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 130102 | ||||
Pollutant: | Oxygen, Dissolved | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 17 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB6 Monitoring data for Carson River, East Fork to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 17 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Oxygen, Dissolved. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for the SWAMP RWB6 Monitoring (tissue and water). | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | 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) (632ECR005) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-08-31 and 2013-08-15 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 4899 | ||||
Pollutant: | Oxygen, Dissolved | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 14 | ||||
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 Geological Survey sampled dissolved oxygen under the Region 6 SWAMP program between 2002 and 2005. Dissolved oxygen concentrations in 14 samples ranged from 8.4 to 12.2 mg/L. The objective was not violated. | ||||
Data Reference: | 2007. SWAMP Data for the East Fork and West Fork Carson River Hydrologic Units | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | For waters designated COLD and SPWN, the 1 day minimum objective is 8 mg/L dissolved oxygen (Lahontan Basin Plan Table 3-6). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | One station, East Fork Carson River at USGS Gage below Markleeville, was sampled. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Fourteen dissolved oxygen measurements were taken over 4 years (2002 to 2005). | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | The East Fork Carson River is an interstate river with headwaters near the Sierra Nevada crest and its lowest point in California in an area transitional to the Great Basin ecoregion. The "below Markleeville" station is downstream of subwatersheds contributing acid mine drainage, and downstream of Markleeville Creek, which is affected by geothermal drainage.
In addition to the Cold Freshwater Habitat beneficial use, the river is designated for the Spawning, Reproduction and Development and the Rare, Threatened, or Endangered Species uses. The latter use reflects the presence of Lahontan and Paiute cutthroat trout. |
||||
QAPP Information: | The quality assurance requirements of the SWAMP QAPP were met. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 130097 | ||||
Pollutant: | Oxygen, Dissolved | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 17 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 4 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB6 Monitoring data for Carson River, East Fork to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 4 of 17 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Oxygen, Saturation. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for the SWAMP RWB6 Monitoring (tissue and water). | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region's water quality objective states that the dissolved oxygen concentration shall not be less than 80 percent of saturation. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site(s) (632ECR005) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-08-31 and 2013-08-15 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
DECISION ID |
72135 |
Region 6 |
Carson River, East Fork |
||
Pollutant: | Turbidity |
Final Listing Decision: | List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Sources: | A Source Unknown |
Expected TMDL Completion Date: | 2031 |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant, two that assess for COLD but these lines of evidence do not include an assessment guideline, and four that assess for MUN. Sixteen of the 77 samples exceed the MUN guideline for turbidity. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Sixteen of the 77 samples exceed the MUN guideline and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are exceeded and a pollutant contributes to or causes the problem. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 4923 | ||||
Pollutant: | Turbidity | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 12 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 3 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | The U.S Geological Survey measured turbidity under the Region 6 SWAMP program between 2001 and 2004. Turbidity in 12 samples ranged from below the detection level to 14 NTU..Three of the 12 samples reported as NTU exceeded the MCL. | ||||
Data Reference: | 2007. SWAMP Data for the East Fork and West Fork Carson River Hydrologic Units | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) apply to ambient surface 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, East Fork Carson River at USGS Gage below Markleeville, was sampled. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Twelve turbidity measurements expressed as NTU were taken between 2001 and 2004.. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | The East Fork Carson River is an interstate river with headwaters near the Sierra Nevada crest and its lowest point in California in an area transitional to the Great Basin ecoregion. The "below Markleeville" station is downstream of subwatersheds contributing acid mine drainage, and downstream of Markleeville Creek, which is affected by geothermal drainage.
In addition to the Cold Freshwater Habitat beneficial use, the river is designated for the Spawning, Reproduction and Development and the Rare, Threatened, or Endangered Species uses. The latter use reflects the presence of Lahontan and Paiute cutthroat trout. |
||||
QAPP Information: | The quality assurance requirements of the SWAMP QAPP were met. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 4903 | ||||
Pollutant: | Turbidity | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
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 Geological Survey sampled the East Fork Carson River under the Region 6 SWAMP program between 2004 and 2005. Two of 4 turbidity measurements expressed as NTRU were below the detection level. The others were 2.2 and 40 NTRU. The highest value was recorded during a high flow spring runoff event in May 2005. | ||||
Data Reference: | 2007. SWAMP Data for the East Fork and West Fork Carson River Hydrologic Units | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | There are no state or federal standards or criteria for turbidity expressed as NTRU for the projection of human health. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | One station, East Fork Carson River at USGS Gage below Markleeville was sampled. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Four turbidity measurements recorded as NTRU were taken in 2004 and 2005. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | The East Fork Carson River is an interstate river with headwaters near the Sierra Nevada crest and its lowest point in California in an area transitional to the Great Basin ecoregion. The "below Markleeville"station is downstream of subwatersheds contributing acid mine drainage, and downstream of Markleeville Creek, which is affected by geothermal drainage.
In addition to the Cold Freshwater Habitat beneficial use, the river is designated for the Spawning, Reproduction and Development and the Rare, Threatened, or Endangered Species uses. The latter use reflects the presence of Lahontan and Paiute cutthroat trout. |
||||
QAPP Information: | The quality assurance requirements of the SWAMP QAPP were met. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 98453 | ||||
Pollutant: | Turbidity | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 22 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 4 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Alpine Watershed Group Monitoring Program data for Carson River, East Fork to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 4 of 22 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Turbidity. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for Alpine Watershed Group Monitoring Program. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The MCL for turbidity, as stipulated in the Lahontan Basin Plan, is not to exceed 5 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) (EF-HANG) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-09-11 and 2017-03-11 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Alpine Watershed Group Volunteer Citizen Water Quality Monitoring Program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Alpine Watershed Group Volunteer Citizen Water Quality Monitoring Program | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 96865 | ||||
Pollutant: | Turbidity | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 39 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 9 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Data were collected by Lahontan staff for the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) RWB6 Monitoring program, and for a supplemental TMDL Integrated Report Special Study. The TMDL Special Study was developed by Lahontan Planning and SWAMP staff to provide additional data to the quarterly SWAMP monitoring. The purpose was to gain a better temporal understanding of levels of specific pollutants in the waterbody. To ensure the two datasets could be viably analyzed as one, the TMDL Special Study followed the same sampling protocol as SWAMP. Accordingly, the two datasets have been combined for this assessment to reflect the intended design and to best characterize conditions in the watershed. Data for the projects were collected between the end of August 2010 and May 2017 from two monitoring stations with a twice-per-quarter frequency. Concentrations in the raw data ranged from 0.49 to 205 NTU. Of the 9 mean of monthly mean samples used for this assessment, 8 exceeded the water quality objective. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for the TMDL Integrated Report Special Study. | ||||
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 MCL for turbidity, as stipulated by reference in the Lahontan Basin Plan, is not to exceed 5 Nephelometric Turbidity Units (NTU). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | Lake Shastina & Siskiyou County Facts & Figures. As of December 31, 2006 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from two locations on the waterbody segment. 632ECR005 is located at the USGS gage below the town of Markleeville; 632ECRB10 is located just upstream of Hangman's Bridge which is found to the southeast of Markleeville on Highway 89. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data were collected on 39 occasions from August 2010 to May 2017 with a predominately twice-per-quarter frequency. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | The East Fork Carson River is an interstate river with headwaters near the Sierra Nevada crest. Its lowest point in California in an area transitional to the Great Basin ecoregion. The "below Markleeville" station is downstream of subwatersheds contributing acid mine drainage, and downstream of Markleeville Creek, which is affected by geothermal drainage. In addition to the Cold Freshwater Habitat beneficial use, the river is designated for the Spawning, Reproduction and Development and the Rare, Threatened, or Endangered Species uses. The latter use reflects the presence of Lahontan and Paiute cutthroat trout. | ||||
QAPP Information: | Data were collected using 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: | 4922 | ||||
Pollutant: | Turbidity | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 12 | ||||
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 Geological Survey measured turbidity under the Region 6 SWAMP program between 2001 and 2004. Turbidity in 12 samples ranged from below the detection level to 14 NTU. | ||||
Data Reference: | 2007. SWAMP Data for the East Fork and West Fork Carson River Hydrologic Units | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The regionwide turbidity objective in the Lahontan Basin Plan states: "Waters shall be free of changes in turbidity that cause nuisance or adversely affect the water for beneficial uses. Increases in turbidity shall not exceed natural levels by more than 10 percent." | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | One station, East Fork Carson River at USGS Gage below Markleeville, was sampled. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Twelve turbidity measurements expressed as NTU were between 2001 and 2004 (at 1 to 5 samples per year). | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | The East Fork Carson River is an interstate river with headwaters near the Sierra Nevada crest and its lowest point in California in an area transitional to the Great Basin ecoregion. The "below Markleeville" station is downstream of subwatersheds contributing acid mine drainage, and downstream of Markleeville Creek, which is affected by geothermal drainage.
In addition to the Cold Freshwater Habitat beneficial use, the river is designated for the Spawning, Reproduction and Development and the Rare, Threatened, or Endangered Species uses. The latter use reflects the presence of Lahontan and Paiute cutthroat trout. |
||||
QAPP Information: | The quality assurance requirements of the SWAMP QAPP were met. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 21551 | ||||
Pollutant: | Turbidity | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
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 Geological Survey sampled the East Fork Carson River under the Region 6 SWAMP program between 2004 and 2005. Two of 4 turbidity measurements expressed as NTRU were below the detection level. The others were 2.2 and 40 NTRU. The highest value was recorded during a high flow spring runoff event in May 2005. | ||||
Data Reference: | 2007. SWAMP Data for the East Fork and West Fork Carson River Hydrologic Units | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | There are no state or federal standards or criteria for turbidity expressed as NTRU for the projection of aquatic life.. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | One station, East Fork Carson River at USGS Gage below Markleeville was sampled. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Four turbidity measurements recorded as NTRU were taken in 2004 and 2005. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | The East Fork Carson River is an interstate river with headwaters near the Sierra Nevada crest and its lowest point in California in an area transitional to the Great Basin ecoregion. The "below Markleeville"station is downstream of subwatersheds contributing acid mine drainage, and downstream of Markleeville Creek, which is affected by geothermal drainage.
In addition to the Cold Freshwater Habitat beneficial use, the river is designated for the Spawning, Reproduction and Development and the Rare, Threatened, or Endangered Species uses. The latter use reflects the presence of Lahontan and Paiute cutthroat trout. |
||||
QAPP Information: | The quality assurance requirements of the SWAMP QAPP were met. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
72405 |
Region 6 |
Carson River, East Fork |
||
Pollutant: | Arsenic |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
Revision Status | 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. Two lines of evidence, involving a single sample, are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The sample does not exceed the California Toxics Rule (CTR) standards or the California Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL).. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfy the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used do not satisfy the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. The single sample did not exceed the CTR standards or the MCL. However, the minimum sample number requirements of Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy were 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: | 4889 | ||||
Pollutant: | Arsenic | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Not Recorded | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Not Specified | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | The U.S Geological Survey sampled arsenic under the Region 6 SWAMP program. One sample had an arsenic concentration of 7.2 ug/L. The CTR standards were not violated. | ||||
Data Reference: | 2007. SWAMP Data for the East Fork and West Fork Carson River Hydrologic Units | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The California Toxics Rule (CTR) freshwater aquatic life standards for arsenic are as follows:
4-day average = 150 ug/L 1 hour average = 340 ug/L |
||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | One station, East Fork Carson River at USGS gage below Markleeville, was sampled. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | One sample was collected on 11/24/2004. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | The East Fork Carson River is an interstate river with headwaters near the Sierra Nevada crest and its lowest point in California in an area transitional to the Great Basin ecoregion. The "below Markleeville" station is downstream of subwatersheds contributing acid mine drainage, and downstream of Markleeville Creek, which is affected by geothermal drainage. Arsenic in this watershed is likely to be from natural volcanic or geothermal sources.
In addition to the Cold Freshwater Habitat beneficial use, the river is designated for the Spawning, Reproduction and Development and the Rare, Threatened, or Endangered Species uses. The latter use reflects the presence of Lahontan and Paiute cutthroat trout. |
||||
QAPP Information: | The quality assurance requirements of the SWAMP QAPP were met. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 4891 | ||||
Pollutant: | Arsenic | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Not Recorded | ||||
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 Geological Survey sampled arsenic under the Region 6 SWAMP program. One sample had an arsenic concentration of 7.2 ug/L. The MCL was not violated. | ||||
Data Reference: | 2007. SWAMP Data for the East Fork and West Fork Carson River Hydrologic Units | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) apply to ambient waters under the Lahontan Basin Plan's "Chemical Constituents" objective. The MCL for arsenic is 10 ug/L (effective November 28, 2008). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | One station, East Fork Carson River at USGS Gage below Markleeville, was sampled. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | One sample was collected on 11/24/2004. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | The East Fork Carson River is an interstate river with headwaters near the Sierra Nevada crest and its lowest point in California in an area transitional to the Great Basin ecoregion. The "below Markleeville" station is downstream of subwatersheds contributing acid mine drainage, and downstream of Markleeville Creek, which is affected by geothermal drainage. Arsenic in this watershed is likely to be from natural volcanic or geothermal sources.
In addition to the Cold Freshwater Habitat beneficial use, the river is designated for the Spawning, Reproduction and Development and the Rare, Threatened, or Endangered Species uses. The latter use reflects the presence of Lahontan and Paiute cutthroat trout. |
||||
QAPP Information: | The quality assurance requirements of the SWAMP QAPP were met. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
71126 |
Region 6 |
Carson River, East Fork |
||
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, consisting of a single sample, is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. No biological data are available for assessment of compliance with the water quality objective for biostimulatory substances. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfy the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used do not satisfy the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No biological data are available to determine whether the single sample exceeded the water quality objective. This sample doe not meet the minimum sample number requirement of Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | This region was not assessed this cycle. All decisions have been carried over from the previous cycle and remain the same. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 21499 | ||||
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 Geological Survey sampled the East Fork Carson River under the Region 6 SWAMP program. A single sample for dissolved PO4 was collected on November 18, 2003. The concentration was 0.019 mg/L. | ||||
Data Reference: | 2007. SWAMP Data for the East Fork and West Fork Carson River Hydrologic Units | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | There are no site-specific numerical objectives for phosphate for the East Fork Carson River. 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, East Fork Carson River at USGS Gage below Markleeville, was sampled. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | One sample was collected on November 18, 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | The East Fork Carson River is an interstate river with headwaters near the Sierra Nevada crest and its lowest point in California in an area transitional to the Great Basin ecoregion. The "below Markleeville" station is downstream of subwatersheds contributing acid mine drainage, and downstream of Markleeville Creek, which is affected by geothermal drainage.
In addition to the Cold Freshwater Habitat beneficial use, the river is designated for the Spawning, Reproduction and Development and the Rare, Threatened, or Endangered Species uses. The latter use reflects the presence of Lahontan and Paiute cutthroat trout. |
||||
QAPP Information: | The quality assurance requirements of the SWAMP QAPP were met. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
78813 |
Region 6 |
Carson River, East Fork |
||
Pollutant: | Salinity |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
Revision Status | Original |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the sample (an annual average value calculated from 21 samples) exceed the water quality objective. Salinity data in parts per thousand was converted to mg/L so data could be compared against the site specific objective for Total Dissolved Solids at Carson River, East Fork of 80 mg/L to determine whether the salinity data provided in this data set protect COLD. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None sample (an annual average calculated from 21 samples) exceeded the site specific objective of 80 mg/L for TDS and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 26 samples is needed for application of table 3.2. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | 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: | 34504 | ||||
Pollutant: | Salinity | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | The annual average of the 21 samples of 52.3 mg/L did not exceed the site specific objective of 80 mg/L. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB6 Trend Monitoring CY2006 CY2007 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Regional Board will consider sitespecific adjustments to the objectives for wetlands (bacteria, pH, hardness, salinity, temperature, or other parameters) as necessary on a case-by-case basis. The site specific objective for Total Dissolved Solids at Carson River, East Fork is 80 mg/L and will be used to assess the salinity data provided in this data set. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples collected from the 632ECR005 station. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples collected approximately twice a month from January 2007 to December 2007 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | 2002 QAMP (Quality Assurance Management Plan) for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
71266 |
Region 6 |
Carson River, East Fork |
||
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:
The Lahontan Basin Plan's narrative water quality objective is an antidegradation based objective that provides that there shall be no increases in suspended sediment concentrations or loads. This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.10 of the Listing Policy, which deals with trends in water quality. One line of evidence, based on quarterly sampling, is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. It includes 16 suspended sediment concentration values and 16 suspended sediment load values calculated from instantaneous discharge measurements. Suspended sediment concentrations and loads are dependent on flows and can change rapidly over a short time during storm or snowmelt runoff events. Quarterly samples are insufficient to capture these short term events and therefore are insufficient to define natural background suspended sediment concentrations and loads, or to detect trends. Listing Policy Section 3.10 requires that natural background conditions be established. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfy the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. Sampling frequency was insufficient to establish natural background conditions and therefore does not meet the requirements of Listing Policy Section 3.10. 3. 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: | 4907 | ||||
Pollutant: | Sediment | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 16 | ||||
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 Geological Survey sampled suspended sediment under the Region 6 SWAMP program and did load calculations based on concurrent flows between 2001 and 2005. Sixteen instantaneous discharge flow measurements ranged from 29 to 2500 cubic feet per second. Suspended sediment concentration in 16 samples ranged from 1 to 297 mg/L. Suspended sediment loads in 16 calculations ranged from 0.08 to 2000 tons per day. (The highest concentration and load occurred during the spring runoff season in May 2005.) | ||||
Data Reference: | 2007. SWAMP Data for the East Fork and West Fork Carson River Hydrologic Units | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The narrative objective for suspended sediment in the Lahontan Basin Plan 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, East Fork Carson River at USGS Gage below Markleeville, was sampled. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Sixteen samples were taken, and sixteen load calculations were done, between 2001 and 2005. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | The East Fork Carson River is an interstate river with headwaters near the Sierra Nevada crest and its lowest point in California in an area transitional to the Great Basin ecoregion. The "below Markleeville" station is downstream of subwatersheds contributing acid mine drainage, and downstream of Markleeville Creek, which is affected by geothermal drainage.
In addition to the Cold Freshwater Habitat beneficial use, the river is designated for the Spawning, Reproduction and Development and the Rare, Threatened, or Endangered Species uses. The latter use reflects the presence of Lahontan and Paiute cutthroat trout. |
||||
QAPP Information: | The quality assurance requirements of the SWAMP QAPP were met. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
69934 |
Region 6 |
Carson River, East Fork |
||
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: | The Lahontan Basin Plan's narrative temperature objective is an antidegradation-based objective that requires that there be no change in temperature in waters designated for the Cold Freshwater Habitat (COLD) beneficial use. The objective does not include specific numerical limits for protection of the COLD use. Listing Policy Section 3.10 contains directions for assessment based on trends in water quality. These directions include requirements to establish specific baseline conditions and specify the influence of seasonal and interannual effects.
Two lines of evidence are available to support this decision. There are not enough temperature samples to establish baseline conditions (including diel, seasonal, annual and interannual variations in temperature) or to detect declining trends in the temperature regime if such trends exist. Because temperature samples were collected only quarterly, weekly and monthly average data are not available for comparison with guidelines in the scientific literature for the temperature requirements of sensitive aquatic species such as salmonids, as directed in Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.9. |
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: | 44135 | ||||
Pollutant: | Temperature, water | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 21 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Carson River, East Fork to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 21 samples exceed the criterion for Water Temperature. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB6 Trend Monitoring CY2006 CY2007 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region's water quality objective for all surface waters states the following: The natural receiving water temperature of all waters shall not be altered unless it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Regional Board that such an alteration in temperature does not adversely affect the water for beneficial uses. For waters designated COLD, the temperature shall not be altered. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | Inland Fishes of California (Moyle 1976) states that for rainbow trout the optimum range for growth and completion of most life stages is 13-21 degrees C (page 129). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Fish introductions in CA: History and impact on native fishes. Davis, CA: University of CA, Davis | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Carson River, East Fork was collected at 1 monitoring site [ East Fork Carson, at USGS gage blw Markleeville] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 1/10/2007-12/27/2007. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | 2002 QAMP (Quality Assurance Management Plan) for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 4920 | ||||
Pollutant: | Temperature, water | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 16 | ||||
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 Geological Survey sampled water temperature under the Region 6 SWAMP program between 2001 and 2005. Temperatures in 16 field measurements ranged from 0 to 17 degrees Celsius. | ||||
Data Reference: | 2007. SWAMP Data for the East Fork and West Fork Carson River Hydrologic Units | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The temperature objective in the Lahontan Basin Plan states: "The natural receiving water temperature of all waters shall not be altered unless it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Regional Board that such an alteration in temperature does not adversely affect the water for beneficial uses.
For waters designated WARM, water temperature shall not be altered by more than five degrees Fahrenheit ... above or below the natural temperature. For waters designated COLD, the temperature shall not be altered. Temperature objectives for COLD interstate waters and WARM interstate waters are as specified in the 'Water Quality Control Plan for Control of Temperature in The Coastal and Interstate Waters and Enclosed Bays and Estuaries of California' including any revisions." |
||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | One station, below Markleeville, was sampled. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Sixteen temperature measurements were taken over 5 years (2001 to 2005 at 1 to 5 samples per year). | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | The East Fork Carson River is an interstate river with headwaters near the Sierra Nevada crest and its lowest point in California in an area transitional to the Great Basin ecoregion. The "below Markleeville" station is downstream of subwatersheds contributing acid mine drainage, and downstream of Markleeville Creek, which is affected by geothermal drainage.
In addition to the Cold Freshwater Habitat beneficial use, the river is designated for the Spawning, Reproduction and Development and the Rare, Threatened, or Endangered Species uses. The latter use reflects the presence of Lahontan and Paiute cutthroat trout. |
||||
QAPP Information: | The quality assurance requirements of the SWAMP QAPP were met. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
72444 |
Region 6 |
Carson River, East Fork |
||
Pollutant: | Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
Revision Status | Original |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollution |
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 of the chemical samples exceeds the water quality objective for biostimulatory substances. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfy the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used do not satisfy the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. Quarterly samples do not capture the seasonal and annual variability expected in streamflows and constituent concentrations in streams of the Lahontan Region. 3. No biological data are available for assessment of compliance with the objective for biostimulatory substances. The chemical data cannot be assessed using Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | This region was not assessed this cycle. All decisions have been carried over from the previous cycle and remain the same. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 21491 | ||||
Pollutant: | Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 16 | ||||
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 Geological Survey sampled sulfate under the Region 6 SWAMP program between 2001 and 2005. One of 16 quarterly samples for TKN was an estimate; concentrations in the other samples ranged from 0.04 to 0.19 mg/L | ||||
Data Reference: | 2007. SWAMP Data for the East Fork and West Fork Carson River Hydrologic Units | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | There is no site-specific numeric objective for Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) for the East Fork Carson River. The Lahontan Basin Plan's 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, East Fork Carson River at USGS Gage below Markleeville, was sampled. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Sixteen quarterly samples were collected between 2001 and 2005. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | The East Fork Carson River is an interstate river with headwaters near the Sierra Nevada crest and its lowest point in California in an area transitional to the Great Basin ecoregion. The "below Markleeville" station is downstream of subwatersheds contributing acid mine drainage, and downstream of Markleeville Creek, which is affected by geothermal drainage.
In addition to the Cold Freshwater Habitat beneficial use, the river is designated for the Spawning, Reproduction and Development and the Rare, Threatened, or Endangered Species uses. The latter use reflects the presence of Lahontan and Paiute cutthroat trout. |
||||
QAPP Information: | The quality assurance requirements of the SWAMP QAPP were met. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||