| Water Body Name: | Bishop Creek (Intake 2) |
| Water Body ID: | CAR6032000020070824165924 |
| Water Body Type: | River & Stream |
DECISION ID |
102434 |
Region 6 |
Bishop Creek (Intake 2) |
||
| 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.
Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the twelve 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 twelve samples exceeded the guideline and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 98145 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Alkalinity as CaCO3 | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 11 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB6 Monitoring data for Bishop Creek (Intake 2) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 1 of 11 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) (603BSP111) | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2013-05-22 and 2015-12-01 | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 98772 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Alkalinity as CaCO3 | ||||
| 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: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP Perennial Stream Surveys data for Bishop Creek (Intake 2) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Alkalinity as CaCO3. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for the SWAMP Perennial Stream Surveys. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The National Recommended Water Quality Criteria for Alkalinity as CaCO3 for the protection of freshwater aquatic life is not less than 20000 ug/L. (National Recommended Water Quality Criteria 2016) | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | 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) (603PS0076) | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2012-07-23 and 2012-07-23 | ||||
| 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 |
102436 |
Region 6 |
Bishop Creek (Intake 2) |
||
| Pollutant: | Ammonia |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
| Revision Status | Revised |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of one samples exceed the criteria for total ammonia 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 one samples exceeded the criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 98323 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Nitrogen, ammonia (Total Ammonia) | ||||
| 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: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP Perennial Stream Surveys data for Bishop Creek (Intake 2) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 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 SWAMP Perennial Stream Surveys. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Total Ammonia criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 30-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is Temperature and pH dependent, and was calculated according to the formula listed in the Aquatic Life Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Ammonia - Freshwater 2013 document. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Aquatic Life Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Ammonia - Freshwater 2013 | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site(s) (603PS0076) | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2012-07-23 and 2012-07-23 | ||||
| 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 |
103529 |
Region 6 |
Bishop Creek (Intake 2) |
||
| Pollutant: | Benthic Community Effects |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
| Revision Status | Revised |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | Benthic Community Effects are being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under sections 3.9 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.9, additional lines of evidence (LOEs) associating the Benthic Community Effects decision with a water or sediment concentration of pollutants other than benthic-macroinvertebrate bioassessment or habitat assessment LOEs are necessary to place a water body on the 303(d) List for Benthic Community Effects.
Two lines of evidence, one evaluating benthic-macroinvertebrate bioassessment data and one evaluating habitat assessment data, are available in the administrative record to assess this indicator. 0 of 1 benthic-macroinvertebrate samples exceed the California Stream Condition Index (CSCI) impairment threshold. 0 of 1 habitat assessment samples exceed the Index of Physical Habitat Integrity (IPI) impairment threshold. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient information to justify placing Benthic Community Effects in this waterbody segment on the CWA section 303(d) List. A minimum of two benthic-macroinvertebrate samples are required to fully assess listing status. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 0 of 1 benthic-macroinvertebrate bioassessment samples had CSCI scores below 0.79. Additionally, 0 of 1 habitat assessment samples had IPI scores below 0.83. The available information is insufficient to determine whether the waterbody/pollutant combination should be placed on the 303(d) List of impaired waters at this time. A minimum of two benthic-macroinvertebrate samples are required to fully assess listing status. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 132705 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Habitat Assessment (Streams) | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Ancillary Line of Evidence | ||||
| Matrix: | -N/A | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Aquatic Life 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 site had a IPI score of 1.07. This score indicates that the habitat at this site has not been altered. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for the SWAMP Perennial Stream Surveys. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are lethal to or that produce significant alterations in population or community ecology or receiving water biota. In addition, the health and life history characteristics of aquatic organisms in waters affected by controllable water quality factors shall not differ significantly from those for the same waters in areas unaffected by controllable water quality factors. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | Physical characteristics of a site vary due to both natural factors and human disturbance. Statistical models based on a large statewide reference data set can help distinguish natural variability from anthropogenic stress. These models work across the diverse stream types found in California. The Index of Physical Habitat Integrity (IPI) is a multimetric Index developed based on these models to characterize physical habitat condition for streams in California. Index scores near 1 indicate physical habitat conditions similar to reference, whereas lower scores indicate degradation. For the purposes of making statewide assessments, three thresholds (analogous to those used for the CSCI) were established based on the 30th; 10th; and 1st percentiles of IPI scores at reference sites. These three thresholds divide the IPI scoring range into 4 categories of physical condition as follows: > or = to 0.94 = likely intact condition; 0.93 to 0.84 = possibly altered condition; 0.83 to 0.71 = likely altered condition; < or = to 0.70 = very likely altered condition. Scores of 0.83 or lower indicate that the physical habitat has been altered and low CSCI scores from this site may be due to impacts to the physical habitat. | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | An Index to Measure the Quality of Physical Habitat in California Wadeable Streams | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Samples collected at site 603PS0076 | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Sample collected on 7/23/2012. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | QAPP for SWAMP Perennial Stream Surveys | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 96323 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Benthic-Macroinvertebrate Bioassessments | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Population/Community Degradation | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Aquatic Life 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 site had a CSCI score of 1.107169062. This score indicates that this site is supporting aquatic life beneficial uses and that the water quality objective is met. Additionally, this water body passed several screening criteria and was identified as a reference water body for the purposes of developing the CSCI. Reference sites where human disturbance is absent or minimal are used to set benchmark expectations for healthy streams. A large set of nearly 600 reference sites representing the broad diversity of natural stream types found across California was used to develop the CSCI. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for the SWAMP Perennial Stream Surveys. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | 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: | Samples collected at site 603PS0076 | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Sample collected on 7/23/2012. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | QAPP for SWAMP Perennial Stream Surveys | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
DECISION ID |
104532 |
Region 6 |
Bishop Creek (Intake 2) |
||
| Pollutant: | Boron |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
| Revision Status | Revised |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 2 of 3 samples exceed the site specific objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 2 of 3 samples exceeded the objective and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 26 samples 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: | |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 133482 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Boron | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 3 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 2 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | 10 samples were collected by SWAMP staff between May 2013 and December 2015. Concentrations in the raw data ranged from 0.0058 mg/L to 0.481 mg/L. Three annual averages were computed from the data, two of which exceeded the site specific objective. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for the SWAMP RWB6 Monitoring (tissue and water). | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The site specific objective for Boron in Bishop Creek (intake 2), as referenced in table 3-17 of the Lahontan Basin Plan, is an annual average value not to 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 from one site, 603BSP111, which is located at the Inyo National Forest Boundary. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data were collected between May 2013 and December 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 | ||||
DECISION ID |
104533 |
Region 6 |
Bishop Creek (Intake 2) |
||
| Pollutant: | Chloride |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
| Revision Status | Revised |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of 4 samples exceed the site specific objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 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 26 samples 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: | |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 133490 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Chloride | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 3 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | 11 samples were collected by SWAMP staff between May 2013 and December 2015. Concentrations in the raw data ranged from 0.36 mg/L to 1.53 mg/L. Three annual averages were computed from the data, none of which exceeded the site specific objective. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for the SWAMP RWB6 Monitoring (tissue and water). | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The site specific objective for chloride in Bishop Creek (intake 2), as referenced in table 3-17 of the Lahontan Basin Plan, is an annual average value not to exceed 1.9 mg/L. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from one site, 603BSP111, which is located at the Inyo National Forest Boundary. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data were collected between May 2013 and December 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: | 133494 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Chloride | ||||
| 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: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | 1 sample was collected by SWAMP Perennial Stream Survey (PSA) staff in July 2012. The one sample was computed to annual average value of 0.43 mg/L which does not exceed the objective. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for the SWAMP Perennial Stream Surveys. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The site specific objective for chloride in Bishop Creek (intake 2), as referenced in table 3-17 of the Lahontan Basin Plan, is an annual average value not to exceed 1.9 mg/L. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from one site, 603PS0076, which is located ~0.3 miles below Coyote Creek. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | 1 sample was collected in July 2012 | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Data were collected in accordance with the SWAMP QAPP. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
DECISION ID |
104534 |
Region 6 |
Bishop Creek (Intake 2) |
||
| Pollutant: | Fluoride |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
| Revision Status | Revised |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of 3 samples exceed the site specific objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 0 of 3 samples exceeded the objective and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 26 samples 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: | |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 133485 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Fluoride | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 3 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | 11 samples were collected by SWAMP staff between May 2013 and December 2015. Concentrations in the raw data ranged from non-detect to 0.135 mg/L. Three annual averages were computed from the data, none of which exceeded the site specific objective. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for the SWAMP RWB6 Monitoring (tissue and water). | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The site specific objective for fluoride in Bishop Creek (intake 2), as referenced in table 3-17 of the Lahontan Basin Plan, is an annual average value not to exceed 0.15 mg/L. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from one site, 603BSP111, which is located at the Inyo National Forest Boundary. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data were collected between May 2013 and December 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 | ||||
DECISION ID |
102034 |
Region 6 |
Bishop Creek (Intake 2) |
||
| 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.
Seven lines of evidence, three which assess E. coli data for the REC-1 beneficial use and four which assess fecal coliform data for the MUN beneficial use, are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of 49 E. coli samples, 2 of 46 fecal coliform geomean samples and 2 of 39 fecal coliform statistical threshold value (STV) samples exceed the water quality objectives. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the 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 49 E. coli samples, 2 of 46 fecal coliform geomean samples and 2 of 39 fecal coliform statistical threshold value (STV) samples exceed the water quality objectives, and these datasets do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 129129 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Fecal Coliform | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 15 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PATHOGEN MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB6 Monitoring data for Bishop Creek (Intake 2) to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 15 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Coliform, Fecal. The water quality standard is based on a 10% exceedance rate that is calculated monthly. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for the SWAMP RWB6 Monitoring (tissue and water). | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Waters shall not contain concentrations of coliform organisms attributable to anthropogenic sources, including human and livestock wastes. The fecal coliform concentration during any 30-day period shall not exceed a log mean of 20/100 ml, nor shall more than 10 percent of all samples collected during any 30-day period exceed 40/100 ml. (Lahontan Region Basin Plan) | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site(s), station(s): 603BSP111 | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the days of 2013-04-22 and 2015-12-01 . | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 129396 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Fecal Coliform | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 24 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 2 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PATHOGEN MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed RWB6_BACT_Monitoring data for Bishop Creek (Intake 2) to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 2 of the 24 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 2 monitoring site(s), station(s): 603BSP111, BIS.15 | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the days of 2014-05-14 and 2015-10-13 . | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 100006 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Escherichia coli (E. coli) | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Water Contact Recreation | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 24 | ||||
| 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 Bishop Creek (Intake 2) to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 24 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 2 monitoring site(s), station(s): 603BSP111, BIS.15 | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the days of 2014-05-14 and 2015-10-13 . | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 99867 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Escherichia coli (E. coli) | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Water Contact Recreation | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 16 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PATHOGEN MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB6 Monitoring data for Bishop Creek (Intake 2) to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 16 samples exceeded the Statistical Threshold Value (STV) water quality standard for E. coli. The STV is based on a 10% exceedance rate that is calculated monthly. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for the SWAMP RWB6 Monitoring (tissue and water). | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The bacteria water quality objective applicable to all waters, except Lake Tahoe, where the salinity is less than 10 parts per thousand (ppth) 95 percent or more of the time is a STATISTICAL THRESHOLD VALUE (STV) of 320 cfu/100 mL not to be exceeded more than 10 percent of the time (calculated monthly). | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays, and Estuaries Plan. Part 1: Trash Provisions; Part 2: Tribal Subsistence Beneficial Uses and Mercury Provisions; Part 3: Bacteria Provisions and Variance Policy | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site(s), station(s): 603BSP111 | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the days of 2013-04-22 and 2015-12-01 . | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 99859 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Escherichia coli (E. coli) | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Water Contact Recreation | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 9 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PATHOGEN MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB6 Monitoring data for Bishop Creek (Intake 2) to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 9 samples exceeded the geomean water quality standard for E. coli. This is a six week rolling geomean that is calculated weekly. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for the SWAMP RWB6 Monitoring (tissue and water). | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The bacteria water quality objective applicable to all waters, except Lake Tahoe, where the salinity is less than 10 parts per thousand (ppth) 95 percent or more of the time is a six-week rolling GEOMETRIC MEAN (GM) of Escherichia coli (E. coli) not to exceed 100 colony forming units per 100 milliliters (cfu/100 mL) (calculated weekly). | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays, and Estuaries Plan. Part 1: Trash Provisions; Part 2: Tribal Subsistence Beneficial Uses and Mercury Provisions; Part 3: Bacteria Provisions and Variance Policy | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site(s), station(s): 603BSP111 | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the days of 2013-04-22 and 2015-12-01 . | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 129323 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Fecal Coliform | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 22 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PATHOGEN MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB6 Monitoring data for Bishop Creek (Intake 2) to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 1 of the 22 samples exceeded the logmean water quality standard for Coliform, Fecal. This is a 30-day rolling logmean that is calculated daily. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for the SWAMP RWB6 Monitoring (tissue and water). | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Waters shall not contain concentrations of coliform organisms attributable to anthropogenic sources, including human and livestock wastes. The fecal coliform concentration during any 30-day period shall not exceed a log mean of 20/100 ml. (Lahontan Region Basin Plan) | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site(s), station(s): 603BSP111 | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the days of 2013-04-22 and 2015-12-01 . | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 129295 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Fecal Coliform | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 24 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PATHOGEN MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed RWB6_BACT_Monitoring data for Bishop Creek (Intake 2) to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 1 of the 24 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 2 monitoring site(s), station(s): 603BSP111, BIS.15 | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the days of 2014-05-14 and 2015-10-13 . | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
DECISION ID |
102435 |
Region 6 |
Bishop Creek (Intake 2) |
||
| 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. Zero of the twelve 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 twelve samples exceeded the guideline and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 98345 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Nitrate/Nitrite (Nitrite + Nitrate as N) | ||||
| 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: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP Perennial Stream Surveys data for Bishop Creek (Intake 2) 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 Perennial Stream Surveys. | ||||
| 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) (603PS0076) | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2012-07-23 and 2012-07-23 | ||||
| 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: | 98543 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Nitrate/Nitrite (Nitrite + Nitrate as N) | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 11 | ||||
| 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 Bishop Creek (Intake 2) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 11 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) (603BSP111) | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2013-05-22 and 2015-12-01 | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
DECISION ID |
104535 |
Region 6 |
Bishop Creek (Intake 2) |
||
| Pollutant: | Nitrogen |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
| Revision Status | Revised |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 1 of 4 samples exceed the site specific objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 1 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: | |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 133492 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Nitrogen | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| 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: | 1 sample was collected by SWAMP Perennial Stream Survey (PSA) staff in July 2012. The one sample was computed to annual average value of 0.114 mg/L which does exceed the objective. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for the SWAMP Perennial Stream Surveys. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The site specific objective for total nitrogen in Bishop Creek (intake 2), as referenced in table 3-17 of the Lahontan Basin Plan, is an annual average value not to exceed 0.1 mg/L. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from one site, 603PS0076, which is located ~0.3 miles below Coyote Creek. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | 1 sample was collected in July 2012 | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Data were collected in accordance with the SWAMP QAPP. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 133491 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Nitrogen | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 3 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | 11 samples were collected by SWAMP staff between May 2013 and December 2015. Concentrations in the raw data ranged from 0.049 mg/L to 0.125 mg/L. Three annual averages were computed from the data, none of which exceeded the site specific objective. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for the SWAMP RWB6 Monitoring (tissue and water). | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The site specific objective for total nitrogen in Bishop Creek (intake 2), as referenced in table 3-17 of the Lahontan Basin Plan, is an annual average value not to exceed 0.1 mg/L. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from one site, 603BSP111, which is located at the Inyo National Forest Boundary. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data were collected between May 2013 and December 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 | ||||
DECISION ID |
103466 |
Region 6 |
Bishop Creek (Intake 2) |
||
| 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.
Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant, two that assess for dissolved oxygen concentration and one that assesses for dissolved oxygen saturation. Zero of two samples exceed the dissolved oxygen concentration objective and zero of one samples exceed the dissolved oxygen saturation 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 two samples exceed the dissolved oxygen concentration objective and zero of one samples exceed the dissolved oxygen saturation objective and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 129951 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Oxygen, Dissolved | ||||
| 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: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB6 Monitoring data for Bishop Creek (Intake 2) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 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) (603BSP111) | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2013-05-22 and 2013-05-22 | ||||
| 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: | 130020 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Oxygen, Dissolved | ||||
| 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: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB6 Monitoring data for Bishop Creek (Intake 2) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Oxygen, Dissolved. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for 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) (603BSP111) | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2013-05-22 and 2013-05-22 | ||||
| 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: | 129989 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Oxygen, Dissolved | ||||
| 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: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP Perennial Stream Surveys data for Bishop Creek (Intake 2) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Oxygen, Dissolved. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for the SWAMP Perennial Stream Surveys. | ||||
| 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) (603PS0076) | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2012-07-23 and 2012-07-23 | ||||
| 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 |
104536 |
Region 6 |
Bishop Creek (Intake 2) |
||
| Pollutant: | Phosphate |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
| Revision Status | Revised |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of 4 samples exceed the site specific objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 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 26 samples 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: | |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 133479 | ||||
| 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: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | 1 sample was collected by SWAMP Perennial Stream Survey (PSA) staff in July 2012. The computed annual average was 0.0093 mg/L with does not exceed the objective. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for the SWAMP Perennial Stream Surveys. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The site specific objective for phosphate as P in Bishop Creek (intake 2), as referenced in table 3-17 of the Lahontan Basin Plan, is an annual average value not to exceed 0.05 mg/L. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from one site, 603PS0076, which is located ~0.3 miles below Coyote Creek. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | 1 sample was collected in July 2012 | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Data were collected in accordance with the SWAMP QAPP. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 133477 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Phosphate | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 3 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | 11 samples were collected by SWAMP staff between May 2013 and December 2015. Concentrations in the raw data ranged from 0.0051 mg/L to 0.0132 mg/L. Three annual averages were computed from the data, none of which exceeded the site specific objective. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for the SWAMP RWB6 Monitoring (tissue and water). | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The site specific objective for phosphate as P in Bishop Creek (intake 2), as referenced in table 3-17 of the Lahontan Basin Plan, is an annual average value not to exceed 0.05 mg/L. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from one site, 603BSP111, which is located at the Inyo National Forest Boundary. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data were collected between May 2013 and December 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 | ||||
DECISION ID |
102437 |
Region 6 |
Bishop Creek (Intake 2) |
||
| 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 both based on the same dataset assessed for AGR and MUN. Zero of eleven samples exceed the guideline for MUN and zero of eleven 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 eleven samples exceed the guideline for MUN and zero of eleven samples exceed the guideline for AGR, and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 97225 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Sodium | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 11 | ||||
| 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 Bishop Creek (Intake 2) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 11 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) (603BSP111) | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2013-05-22 and 2015-12-01 | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 98503 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Sodium | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Agricultural Supply | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 11 | ||||
| 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 Bishop Creek (Intake 2) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 11 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) (603BSP111) | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2013-05-22 and 2015-12-01 | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
DECISION ID |
102438 |
Region 6 |
Bishop Creek (Intake 2) |
||
| Pollutant: | Specific Conductivity |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
| Revision Status | Revised |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of twelve samples exceed the guideline for specific conductivity. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of twelve samples exceeded the guideline and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 97783 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Specific Conductivity | ||||
| 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 Perennial Stream Surveys data for Bishop Creek (Intake 2) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 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 Perennial Stream Surveys. | ||||
| 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) (603PS0076) | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2012-07-23 and 2012-07-23 | ||||
| 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: | 97074 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Specific Conductivity | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 11 | ||||
| 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 Bishop Creek (Intake 2) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 11 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) (603BSP111) | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2013-05-22 and 2015-12-01 | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
DECISION ID |
102439 |
Region 6 |
Bishop Creek (Intake 2) |
||
| Pollutant: | Sulfates |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
| Revision Status | Revised |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of twelve samples exceed the guideline for sulfate. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of twelve samples exceeded the guideline and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 97257 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Sulfates | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 11 | ||||
| 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 Bishop Creek (Intake 2) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 11 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Sulfate. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for the SWAMP RWB6 Monitoring (tissue and water). | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The California Secondary MCL that is incorporated by reference in the Water Quality Control Plan, Lahontan Region for Sulfate 250 mg/L (Water Quality Control Plan, Lahontan Region). | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site(s) (603BSP111) | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2013-05-22 and 2015-12-01 | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 98773 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Sulfates | ||||
| 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 Perennial Stream Surveys data for Bishop Creek (Intake 2) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Sulfate. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for the SWAMP Perennial Stream Surveys. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The California Secondary MCL that is incorporated by reference in the Water Quality Control Plan, Lahontan Region for Sulfate 250 mg/L (Water Quality Control Plan, Lahontan Region). | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site(s) (603PS0076) | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2012-07-23 and 2012-07-23 | ||||
| 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 |
104537 |
Region 6 |
Bishop Creek (Intake 2) |
||
| Pollutant: | Total Dissolved Solids |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
| Revision Status | Revised |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 3 of 3 annual average samples exceed the site specific objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 3 of 3 samples exceeded the objective and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 26 samples 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: | |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 133487 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Total Dissolved Solids | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 3 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 3 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | 11 samples were collected by SWAMP staff between May 2013 and December 2015. Concentrations in the raw data ranged from 25 mg/L to 66 mg/L. Three annual averages were computed from the data, all of which exceeded the site specific objective. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for the SWAMP RWB6 Monitoring (tissue and water). | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The site specific objective for total dissolved solids (TDS) in Bishop Creek (intake 2), as referenced in table 3-17 of the Lahontan Basin Plan, is an annual average value not to exceed 27 mg/L. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from one site, 603BSP111, which is located at the Inyo National Forest Boundary. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data were collected between May 2013 and December 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 | ||||
DECISION ID |
102440 |
Region 6 |
Bishop Creek (Intake 2) |
||
| Pollutant: | Turbidity |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
| Revision Status | Revised |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of twelve samples exceed the guideline for turbidity. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of twelve samples exceeded the guideline and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 97190 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Turbidity | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 11 | ||||
| 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 Bishop Creek (Intake 2) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 11 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Turbidity. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for the SWAMP RWB6 Monitoring (tissue and water). | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water designated as MUN shall not contain concentrations of chemical constituents in excess of the maximum contaminant level (MCL) or secondary maximum contaminant level (SMCL) based upon drinking water standards specified in Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations. The Lahontan Basin Plan also has regionwide turbidity objective for other beneficial uses that states: Waters shall be free of changes in turbidity that cause nuisance or adversely affect the water for beneficial uses. Increases in turbidity shall not exceed natural levels by more than 10%. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | California Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) apply to ambient surface waters under the Lahontan Basin Plan's \Chemical Constituents\" objective. The Secondary MCL for turbidity is 5 NTU. Calculation of a numeric objective for other beneficial uses requires comparison with upstream or other background data which may not be available as part of the data used for water quality assessment. " | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 4, Chapter 15. Domestic Water Quality and Monitoring | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site(s) (603BSP111) | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2013-05-22 and 2015-12-01 | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 98264 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Turbidity | ||||
| 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 Perennial Stream Surveys data for Bishop Creek (Intake 2) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality standard for Turbidity. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Water Quality Assessment Data for the 2018 solicitation cycle submitted through CEDEN for the SWAMP Perennial Stream Surveys. | ||||
| 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. The Lahontan Basin Plan also has regionwide turbidity objective for other beneficial uses that states: Waters shall be free of changes in turbidity that cause nuisance or adversely affect the water for beneficial uses. Increases in turbidity shall not exceed natural levels by more than 10%. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (as amended) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | California Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) apply to ambient surface waters under the Lahontan Basin Plan's \Chemical Constituents\" objective. The Secondary MCL for turbidity is 5 NTU. Calculation of a numeric objective for other beneficial uses requires comparison with upstream or other background data which may not be available as part of the data used for water quality assessment. " | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 4, Chapter 15. Domestic Water Quality and Monitoring | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site(s) (603PS0076) | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2012-07-23 and 2012-07-23 | ||||
| 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 |
103795 |
Region 6 |
Bishop Creek (Intake 2) |
||
| Pollutant: | pH |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
| Revision Status | Revised |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant that are based on two datasets assessed for MUN and 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: | |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 129653 | ||||
| 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) (603BSP111) | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2013-05-22 and 2015-12-01 | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 129661 | ||||
| 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) (603BSP111) | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2013-05-22 and 2015-12-01 | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Program Plan and Standard Operating Procedures for SWAMP program | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Program Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, and Standard Operating Procedures for the SWAMP program | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 129715 | ||||
| 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 Perennial Stream Surveys. | ||||
| 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) (603PS0076) | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2012-07-23 and 2012-07-23 | ||||
| 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: | 129642 | ||||
| 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 Perennial Stream Surveys. | ||||
| 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) (603PS0076) | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2012-07-23 and 2012-07-23 | ||||
| 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 | ||||