Water Body Name: | Prosser Creek |
Water Body ID: | CAR6352003020170823028547 |
Water Body Type: | River & Stream |
DECISION ID |
103266 |
Region 6 |
Prosser Creek |
||
Pollutant: | Ammonia |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of 2 samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used does not satisfy the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 0 of 2 samples exceeded the objective and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples 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: | 97386 | ||||
Pollutant: | Nitrogen, ammonia (Total Ammonia) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Truckee River Watershed Council data for Prosser Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Ammonia as N. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for the Truckee River Watershed Council. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Total Ammonia criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 30-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is Temperature and pH dependent, and was calculated according to the formula listed in the Aquatic Life Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Ammonia - Freshwater 2013 document. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Aquatic Life Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Ammonia - Freshwater 2013 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site(s) (MTRPROS01) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2015-05-16 and 2016-09-24 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) for Truckee River Monitoring Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) for Truckee River Monitoring Plan. | ||||
DECISION ID |
103264 |
Region 6 |
Prosser Creek |
||
Pollutant: | Indicator Bacteria |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Two lines of evidence, one evaluating fecal coliform log-mean data and one evaluating fecal coliform Statistical Threshold Value (STV) data are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of 2 samples in either evaluation exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used does not satisfy the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 0 of 2 samples in either the log-mean or STV evaluation exceeded the objective and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 26 samples per pollutant fraction assessed are needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.2. 4. Pursuant to SECTION 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 129176 | ||||
Pollutant: | Fecal Coliform | ||||
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: | PATHOGEN MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Truckee River Watershed Council data for Prosser Creek to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 2 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Coliform, Fecal. The water quality standard is based on a 10% exceedance rate that is calculated monthly. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for the Truckee River Watershed Council. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Waters shall not contain concentrations of coliform organisms attributable to anthropogenic sources, including human and livestock wastes. The fecal coliform concentration during any 30-day period shall not exceed a log mean of 20/100 ml, nor shall more than 10 percent of all samples collected during any 30-day period exceed 40/100 ml. (Lahontan Region Basin Plan) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site(s), station(s): MTRPROS01 | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the days of 2015-05-16 and 2016-05-14 . | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) for Truckee River Monitoring Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) for Truckee River Monitoring Plan. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 129244 | ||||
Pollutant: | Fecal Coliform | ||||
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: | PATHOGEN MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Truckee River Watershed Council data for Prosser Creek to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 2 samples exceeded the logmean water quality standard for Coliform, Fecal. This is a 30-day rolling logmean that is calculated daily. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for the Truckee River Watershed Council. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Waters shall not contain concentrations of coliform organisms attributable to anthropogenic sources, including human and livestock wastes. The fecal coliform concentration during any 30-day period shall not exceed a log mean of 20/100 ml. (Lahontan Region Basin Plan) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site(s), station(s): MTRPROS01 | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the days of 2015-05-16 and 2016-05-14 . | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) for Truckee River Monitoring Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) for Truckee River Monitoring Plan. | ||||
DECISION ID |
103265 |
Region 6 |
Prosser Creek |
||
Pollutant: | Nitrate/Nitrite (Nitrite + Nitrate as N) |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of 4 samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used does not satisfy the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 0 of 4 samples exceeded the objective and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples 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: | 97425 | ||||
Pollutant: | Nitrate/Nitrite (Nitrite + Nitrate as N) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
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 Truckee River Watershed Council data for Prosser Creek 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 Truckee River Watershed Council. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The California Maximum Contaminant Level for nitrate + nitrite (as N) that is incorporated by reference in the Water Quality Control Plan, Lahontan Region is 10.0 mg/L (Water Quality Control Plan, Lahontan Region). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site(s) (MTRPROS01) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2015-05-16 and 2016-09-24 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) for Truckee River Monitoring Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) for Truckee River Monitoring Plan. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 97613 | ||||
Pollutant: | Nitrate/Nitrite (Nitrite + Nitrate as N) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
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 Monitoring data for Prosser Creek 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 SWAMP Monitoring. | ||||
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) (635340500) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2012-09-15 and 2012-09-15 | ||||
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 |
103267 |
Region 6 |
Prosser Creek |
||
Pollutant: | Oxygen, Dissolved |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of 48 samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 0 of 48 samples exceeded the objective and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 130006 | ||||
Pollutant: | Oxygen, Dissolved | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 48 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Truckee River Watershed Council data for Prosser Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 48 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Oxygen, Dissolved. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for the Truckee River Watershed Council. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | For waters with the beneficial uses of COLD, COLD with SPWN, WARM, and WARM with SPWN, the minimum dissolved oxygen concentration shall not be less than that specified in Table 3-6. (Water Quality Control Plan, Lahontan Region) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 2 monitoring site(s) (MTRPROS01, MTRPROS02) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-09-24 and 2016-09-24 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) for Truckee River Monitoring Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) for Truckee River Monitoring Plan. | ||||
DECISION ID |
103268 |
Region 6 |
Prosser Creek |
||
Pollutant: | Phosphorus |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of 2 samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used does not satisfy the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 0 of 2 samples exceeded the objective and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples 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: | 96924 | ||||
Pollutant: | Phosphorus | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | The water quality data for Phosphorus were collected by the Truckee River Watershed Council and consist of data collected during three separate sampling events, twice in 2015 and once in 2016. This resulted in two mean of monthly mean values (0.033 and 0.047 mg/L), none of which exceeded the objective. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for the Truckee River Watershed Council. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The site specific objective for Phosphorus can be found in the Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Basin in Table 3-11 and is 0.05 mg/L for the Truckee River below Prosser Creek. The objective is applied as the mean of monthly means calculated on an annual basis. Prosser Creek is a tributary to the Truckee River. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The data were collected at one sampling location at Prosser Creek below the dam. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The data were collected on three separate occasions, twice in 2015 and once in 2016. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The data were collected in accordance with the Quality Assurance Project Plan for Truckee River Monitoring Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) for Truckee River Monitoring Plan. | ||||
DECISION ID |
103269 |
Region 6 |
Prosser Creek |
||
Pollutant: | Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 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. 1 of 2 samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used does not satisfy the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 1 of 2 samples exceeded the objective and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples 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: | 96923 | ||||
Pollutant: | Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | The water quality data for Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen were collected by the Truckee River Watershed Council and consist of data collected during three separate sampling events, twice in 2015 and once in 2016. This resulted in two mean of monthly mean values (0.24 and 0.38 mg/L), one of which exceeded the objective. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for the Truckee River Watershed Council. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The site specific objective for Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen can be found in the Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Basin in Table 3-11 and is 0.26 mg/L for the Truckee River below Prosser Creek. This objective is applied as the mean of monthly means calculated on an annual basis. Prosser Creek is a tributary to the Truckee River. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The data were collected at one sampling location at Prosser Creek below the dam. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The data were collected on three separate occasions, twice in 2015 and once in 2016. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The data were collected in accordance with the Quality Assurance Project Plan for Truckee River Monitoring Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) for Truckee River Monitoring Plan. | ||||
DECISION ID |
103270 |
Region 6 |
Prosser Creek |
||
Pollutant: | Turbidity |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 3 of 49 samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the 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. 3 of 49 samples exceeded the objective and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 97400 | ||||
Pollutant: | Turbidity | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 49 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 3 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Truckee River Watershed Council data for Prosser Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 3 of 49 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Turbidity. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for the Truckee River Watershed Council. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water designated as MUN shall not contain concentrations of chemical constituents in excess of the maximum contaminant level (MCL) or secondary maximum contaminant level (SMCL) based upon drinking water standards specified in Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations. The Lahontan Basin Plan also has regionwide turbidity objective for other beneficial uses that states: Waters shall be free of changes in turbidity that cause nuisance or adversely affect the water for beneficial uses. Increases in turbidity shall not exceed natural levels by more than 10%. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | California Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) apply to ambient surface waters under the Lahontan Basin Plan's \Chemical Constituents\" objective. The Secondary MCL for turbidity is 5 NTU. Calculation of a numeric objective for other beneficial uses requires comparison with upstream or other background data which may not be available as part of the data used for water quality assessment. " | ||||
Guideline Reference: | California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 4, Chapter 15. Domestic Water Quality and Monitoring | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 2 monitoring site(s) (MTRPROS01, MTRPROS02) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-09-24 and 2016-09-24 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) for Truckee River Monitoring Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) for Truckee River Monitoring Plan. | ||||
DECISION ID |
103271 |
Region 6 |
Prosser Creek |
||
Pollutant: | pH |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Two lines of evidence, one evaluating data for the MUN beneficial use and one evaluating data for the COLD beneficial use are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. pH assessments require background information regarding water quality conditions in the waterbody to assess changes to ambient pH. These information were not available for this assessment and the computed sample size is zero. 0 of 0 samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used does not satisfy the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 0 of 0 samples exceeded the objective and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 26 samples per beneficial use assessed are needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.2. 4. Pursuant to SECTION 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 129554 | ||||
Pollutant: | pH | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | 0 of 0 samples exceeded the water quality standard for pH. Although pH data does exist for this waterbody, the objective for this pollutant requires background information that is currently unavailable, and therefore an assessment of water quality standards could not be made. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for the Truckee River Watershed Council. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Lahontan Basin Plan's regionwide objective for pH states: \In fresh waters with designated beneficial uses of COLD or WARM, changes in normal ambient pH levels shall not exceed 0.5 pH units. For all other waters of the region, the pH shall not be depressed below 6.5 nor raised above 8.5 units. The Regional Board recognizes that some waters of the Region may have natural pH levels outside of the 6.5 to 8.5 range. Compliance with the pH objective for these waters will be determined on a case-by-case basis.\"" | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 2 monitoring site(s) (MTRPROS01, MTRPROS02) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-09-24 and 2016-09-24 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) for Truckee River Monitoring Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) for Truckee River Monitoring Plan. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 129835 | ||||
Pollutant: | pH | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | 0 of 0 samples exceeded the water quality standard for pH. Although pH data does exist for this waterbody, the objective for this pollutant requires background information that is currently unavailable, and therefore an assessment of water quality standards could not be made. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for the Truckee River Watershed Council. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Lahontan Basin Plan's regionwide objective for pH states: \In fresh waters with designated beneficial uses of COLD or WARM, changes in normal ambient pH levels shall not exceed 0.5 pH units. For all other waters of the region, the pH shall not be depressed below 6.5 nor raised above 8.5 units. The Regional Board recognizes that some waters of the Region may have natural pH levels outside of the 6.5 to 8.5 range. Compliance with the pH objective for these waters will be determined on a case-by-case basis.\"" | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 2 monitoring site(s) (MTRPROS01, MTRPROS02) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2010-09-24 and 2016-09-24 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) for Truckee River Monitoring Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) for Truckee River Monitoring Plan. | ||||