251,$ 5(*,21$/ :$7(5 48$/,7< &21752/ %2$5' /$+217$1 5(*,21 ...€¦ · 7+(5()25( %( ,7 5(62/9('...
74
&$/,)251,$ 5(*,21$/ :$7(5 48$/,7< &21752/ %2$5' /$+217$1 5(*,21 0((7,1* 2) -81( %,6+23 &$ ,7(0 68%-(&7 38%/,& +($5,1* ±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³,QWHJUDWHG 5HSRUW´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³OLQHV RI HYLGHQFH´ DQG ZDWHU ERG\ IDFW VKHHWV VXPPDUL]LQJ WKH LQIRUPDWLRQ DQG GDWD VXSSRUWLQJ VWDII¶V UHFRPPHQGDWLRQV 7KH OLQHV RI HYLGHQFH DQG IDFWV VKHHWV QHDUO\ GRXEOHG WKLV F\FOH LQ FRPSDULVRQ WR WKH 13-1
Transcript of 251,$ 5(*,21$/ :$7(5 48$/,7< &21752/ %2$5' /$+217$1 5(*,21 ...€¦ · 7+(5()25( %( ,7 5(62/9('...
13-1
2
13-2
13-3
13-4
13-5
____________________________
13-6
AP
PE
ND
IX A
- N
EW
AN
D R
EV
ISE
D 3
03(D
) LI
ST
FO
R 2
012
Waterbo
dyNew
Listing?
Pollu
tant
CompletionYe
ar¹
Category²
SurpriseVa
lleyHU
MillCreek(M
odoc
Coun
ty)
No
TotalD
issovledSolids
2021
5Bidw
ellCreek
No
TotalD
issovledSolids
2021
5
SusanRiver(He
adwaterstoSusanville)
No
Unkno
wntoxicity
2019
5SusanRiver(He
adwaterstoSusanville)
No
Mercury
2019
5SusanRiver(He
adwaterstoSusanville)
No
TotalD
issolvedSolids
2021
5SusanRiver(He
adwaterstoSusanville)
No
TotalN
itrogen
asN
2021
5SusanRiver(Susanvilleto
Litchfield)
No
Unkno
wntoxicity
2019
5SusanRiver(Susanvilleto
Litchfield)
No
Mercury
2019
5SusanRiver(Susanvilleto
Litchfield)
No
TotalD
issolvedSolids
2021
5SusanRiver(Susanvilleto
Litchfield)
No
Turbidity
2021
5SusanRiver(Susanvilleto
Litchfield)
No
Unkno
wntoxicity
2021
5SusanRiver(Litchfieldto
Hone
yLake)
No
Unkno
wntoxicity
2019
5SusanRiver(Litchfieldto
Hone
yLake)
No
Mercury
2019
5EagleLake
No
Nitrogen
2011
5EagleLake
No
Phosph
orus
2011
5Ho
neyLake
No
Arsenic
2019
5Ho
neyLake
No
Salinity
/TDS
/Chlorides
2019
5Ho
neyLake
Area
Wetland
sNo
Metals
2019
5Ho
neyLake
WildfowlM
anagem
entP
onds
No
Metals
2019
5Ho
neyLake
WildfowlM
anagem
entP
onds
No
Salinity
/TDS
/Chlorides
2019
5Ho
neyLake
WildfowlM
anagem
ent P
onds
No
TraceElem
ents
2019
5
TruckeeRiver
No
Sedimen
tatio
n/Silta
tion
2009
4ABron
coCreek
No
Sedimen
tatio
n/Silta
tion
2009
4AGray
Creek(NevadaCo
unty)
No
Sedimen
tatio
n/Silta
tion
2009
4ADo
nner
Lake
No
PriorityOrganics
2019
5Do
nner
Lake
Yes
Chlordane
2025
5Do
nner
Lake
Yes
Arsenic
2025
5SquawCreek
No
Sedimen
tatio
n/Silta
tion
2007
4A
SusanvilleHU
TruckeeRiverH
U
Page
1of
6R6
2012
Integrated
Repo
rt13
-7
AP
PE
ND
IX A
- N
EW
AN
D R
EV
ISE
D 3
03(D
) LI
ST
FO
R 2
012
Waterbo
dyNew
Listing?
Pollu
tant
CompletionYe
ar¹
Category²
Lake
Taho
eNo
Sedimen
tatio
n/Silta
tion
2011
4ALake
Taho
eNo
Nitrogen
2011
4ALake
Taho
eNo
Phosph
orus
2011
4ABlackw
oodCreek
No
Sedimen
tatio
n/Silta
tion
2008
5Blackw
oodCreek
No
Iron
2019
5Blackw
oodCreek
No
Nitrogen
2011
5Blackw
oodCreek
No
Phosph
orus
2011
5Co
ldCreek
No
TotalN
itrogen
asN
2021
4BGe
neralCreek
No
Iron
2019
5Ge
neralCreek
No
Phosph
orus
2012
5He
aven
lyVa
lleyCreek(sou
rceto
USFSbo
undary)
No
Chlorid
e20
195
Heaven
lyVa
lleyCreek(sou
rceto
USFSbo
undary)
No
Phosph
orus
2011
5He
aven
lyVa
lleyCreek(sou
rceto
USFSbo
undary)
No
Sedimen
tatio
n/Silta
tion
2002
5He
aven
lyVa
lleyCreek(USFSbo
undary
toTrou
tCreek)
No
Chlorid
e20
195
Heaven
lyVa
lleyCreek(USFSbo
undary
toTrou
tCreek)
No
Sedimen
tatio
n/Silta
tion
2011
5TallacCreek
No
Pathogen
s20
195
Trou
tCreek
(abo
veHW
Y50
)No
Iron
2019
5Trou
tCreek
(abo
veHW
Y50
)No
Nitrogen
2011
5Trou
tCreek
(abo
veHW
Y50
)No
Phosph
orus
2011
5Trou
tCreek
(abo
veHW
Y50
)No
Pathogen
s20
135
Trou
tCreek
(below
HWY50
)No
Iron
2019
5Trou
tCreek
(below
HWY50
)No
Nitrogen
2011
5Trou
tCreek
(below
HWY50
)No
Phosph
orus
2011
5Trou
tCreek
(below
HWY50
)No
Pathogen
s20
195
TruckeeRiver,Upp
er(abo
veCh
ristm
asVa
lley)
No
Iron
2019
5TruckeeRiver,Upp
er(abo
veCh
ristm
asVa
lley)
No
Phosph
orus
2011
5TruckeeRiver,Upp
er(below
Christm
asVa
lley)
No
Iron
2019
5TruckeeRiver,Upp
er(below
Christm
asVa
lley)
No
Phosph
orus
2011
5WardCreek
No
Iron
2019
5WardCreek
No
Nitrogen
2011
5WardCreek
No
Phosph
orus
2011
5WardCreek
No
Sedimen
tatio
n/Silta
tion
2011
5
Lake
Taho
eHU
Page
2of
6R6
2012
Integrated
Repo
rt13
-8
AP
PE
ND
IX A
- N
EW
AN
D R
EV
ISE
D 3
03(D
) LI
ST
FO
R 2
012
Waterbo
dyNew
Listing?
Pollu
tant
CompletionYe
ar¹
Category²
BijouPark
Creek
Yes
Iron
2025
5BijouPark
Creek
Yes
Oilandgrease
2025
5BijouPark
Creek
Yes
Phosph
orus
2025
5BijouPark
Creek
Yes
TotalN
itrogen
asN
2025
5BijouPark
Creek
Yes
Turbidity
2025
5WestF
orkCa
rson
RiverH
UCarson
River,WestF
ork(Headw
aterstoWoo
dfords)
No
Nitrogen
2019
5Carson
River,WestF
ork(Headw
aterstoWoo
dfords)
No³
nitrate
2019
5Carson
River,WestF
ork(Headw
aterstoWoo
dfords)
No
Phosph
orus
2019
5Carson
River,WestF
ork(Headw
aterstoWoo
dfords)
Yes
Chlorid
e20
255
Carson
River,WestF
ork(Headw
aterstoWoo
dfords)
Yes
Sulfate
2025
5Carson
River,WestF
ork(Headw
aterstoWoo
dfords)
Yes
TotalD
issolvedSolids
2025
5Carson
River,WestF
ork(Headw
aterstoWoo
dfords)
Yes
Turbidity
2025
5Carson
River,WestF
ork(W
oodfords
toPaynesville)
No
Nitrogen
2019
5Carson
River,WestF
ork(W
oodfords
toPaynesville)
No
Pathogen
s20
135
Carson
River,WestF
ork(W
oodfords
toPaynesville)
Yes
Chlorid
e20
255
Carson
River,WestF
ork(W
oodfords
toPaynesville)
Yes
Nitrate
2025
5Carson
River,WestF
ork(W
oodfords
toPaynesville)
Yes
Sulfate
2025
5Carson
River,WestF
ork(W
oodfords
toPaynesville)
Yes
TotalD
issolvedSolids
2025
5Carson
River,WestF
ork(W
oodfords
toPaynesville)
Yes
Turbidity
2025
5Carson
River,WestF
ork(Payne
svilleto
stateline)
No
Pathogen
s20
135
Snow
shoe
Thom
pson
Ditch1
Yes
Phosph
orus
2025
4BSnow
shoe
Thom
pson
Ditch1
Yes
TotalKjeldahlN
itrogen
2025
4B
Carson
River,EastFork
No
TotalD
issolvedSolids
2021
5WolfC
reek
(AlpineCo
unty)
No
Sedimen
tatio
n/Silta
tion
2019
5Indian
Creek(AlpineCo
unty)
No
Pathogen
s20
135
Indian
Creek(AlpineCo
unty)
Yes
Chlorid
e20
255
Indian
Creek(AlpineCo
unty)
Yes
DissolvedOxygen
2025
5Indian
CreekRe
servoir
No
Phosph
orus
2003
4AIndian
CreekRe
servoir
Yes
DissolvedOxygen
2003
4AAspe
nCreek
No
Metals
2019
4BBryant
Creek
No
Metals
2019
4B
EastFork
Carson
RiverH
U
Page
3of
6R6
2012
Integrated
Repo
rt13
-9
AP
PE
ND
IX A
- N
EW
AN
D R
EV
ISE
D 3
03(D
) LI
ST
FO
R 2
012
Waterbo
dyNew
Listing?
Pollu
tant
CompletionYe
ar¹
Category²
LeviathanCreek
No
Metals
2019
4BMon
itorC
reek
No
Alum
inum
2019
4BMon
itorC
reek
No
Iron
2019
5Mon
itorC
reek
No
Mangane
se20
195
Mon
itorC
reek
No
Silver
2019
5Mon
itorC
reek
No
Sulfate
2019
5Mon
itorC
reek
No
TotalD
issolvedSolids
2019
5
EastWalkerR
iver,abo
veBridgepo
rtRe
servoir
No
Pathogen
s20
274B
EastWalkerR
iver,below
Bridgepo
rtRe
servoir
No
Sedimen
tatio
n/Silta
tion
2019
5EastWalkerR
iver,below
Bridgepo
rtRe
servoir
No
Mangane
se20
215
EastWalkerR
iver,below
Bridgepo
rtRe
servoir
No
Turbidity
2021
5Bridgepo
rtRe
servoir
No
Nitrogen
2019
5Bridgepo
rtRe
servoir
No
Phosph
orus
2019
5Bridgepo
rtRe
servoir
No
Sedimen
tatio
n/Silta
tion
2019
5Bu
ckeyeCreek
No
Pathogen
s20
274B
Robinson
Creek(HWY39
5to
Bridgepo
rtRe
servoir)
No
Pathogen
s20
274B
Robinson
Creek(TwinLakes toHW
Y39
5)No
Pathogen
s20
274B
SwaugerC
reek
No
Pathogen
s20
274B
SwaugerC
reek
No
Phosph
orus
2010
5Bo
dieCreek
No
Mercury
2027
5
Mon
oLake
No
Salinity
/TDS
/Chlorides
2019
5
Mam
mothCreek(Headw
aterstoTw
inLakeso
utlet)
No
TotalD
issolvedSolids
2021
5Mam
mothCreek(TwinLakeso
utlettoOldMam
mothRo
ad)
No
Mercury
2019
5Mam
mothCreek(TwinLakeso
utlettoOldMam
mothRo
ad)
No
Mangane
se20
215
Mam
mothCreek(OldMam
mothRo
adto
HWY39
5)No
Mercury
2021
5Mam
mothCreek(OldMam
mothRo
adto
HWY39
5)No
Mangane
se20
215
Mam
mothCreek(OldMam
mothRo
adto
HWY39
5)No
TotalD
issovledSolids
2021
5Mam
mothCreek,un
amed
tributary(con
fluen
ceisne
arOld
Mam
mothRd
.)No
Arsenic
2021
5
Mon
oHU
EastWalkerR
iver
HU
Owen
sHU
Page
4of
6R6
2012
Integrated
Repo
rt13
-10
AP
PE
ND
IX A
- N
EW
AN
D R
EV
ISE
D 3
03(D
) LI
ST
FO
R 2
012
Waterbo
dyNew
Listing?
Pollu
tant
CompletionYe
ar¹
Category²
Mam
mothCreek,un
amed
tributary(con
fluen
ceisne
arOld
Mam
mothRd
.)No
Mercury
2021
5Hilto
nCreek
No
Oxygen,Dissolved
2021
5Ro
ckCreek(trib
utaryto
Owen
sRiver)
No
TotalD
issolvedSolids
2021
5Crow
leyLake
No
Ammon
ia20
195
Crow
leyLake
No
DissolvedOxygen
2019
5Ha
iwee
Reservoir
No
Copp
er20
195
Pleasant
ValleyRe
servoir
No
OrganicEnrichm
ent/LowDO
2019
5
Amargosa
River(Nevadabo
rder
toTecopa)
No
Arsenic
2021
5Am
argoas
River(Tecopa
toUpp
erCanyon
)No
Arsenic
2021
5Am
argosa
River(Upp
erCanyon
toIllow
Creekconfluen
ce)
NArsenic
2021
Mesqu
iteSprin
gs(In
yoCo
unty)
No
Arsenic
2021
5Mesqu
iteSprin
gs(In
yoCo
unty)
No
Boron
2021
5
SearlesL
ake
No
Salinity
/TDS
/Chlorides
2019
4BSearlesL
ake
No
TotalPetroleum
Hydrocarbo
ns20
194B
LittleRo
ckRe
servoir
No
Mangane
se20
215
LittleRo
ckRe
servoir
Yes
Mercury
2025
5
LittleRo
ckRe
servoir
Yes
Polychlorin
ated
biph
enyls(PC
Bs)
2025
5
Silverwoo
dLake
Yes
Mercuy
2025
5Silverwoo
dLake
Yes
Polychlorin
ated
biph
enyls(PC
Bs)
2025
5Lake
Arrowhe
adYes
Mercury
2025
5Lake
Gregory
Yes
Mercury
2025
5Ho
lcom
bCreek
No
TotalD
issolvedSolids
2021
5MojaveRiver(MojaveForksR
eservoirou
tlettoUpp
erNarrows)
No
Fluo
ride
2021
5MojaveRiver(Upp
erNarrowstoLower
Narrows)
No
Fluo
ride
2021
5MojaveRiver(Upp
erNarrowstoLower
Narrows)
No
Sulfates
2021
5MojaveRiver(Upp
erNarrowstoLower
Narrows)
No
TotalD
issolvedSolids
2021
5Crab
Creek
No
TotalD
issolvedSolids
2021
5
Amargosa
HU
Tron
aHU
MojaveHU
Antelope
HU
Page
5of
6R6
2012
Integrated
Repo
rt13
-11
AP
PE
ND
IX A
- N
EW
AN
D R
EV
ISE
D 3
03(D
) LI
ST
FO
R 2
012
Waterbo
dyNew
Listing?
Pollu
tant
CompletionYe
ar¹
Category²
SheepCreek
No
Nitrate
2021
5SheepCreek
No
TotalD
issolvedSolids
2021
5
4A.A
lllistin
gsforthisw
ater
body
arebe
ingaddressedby
USEPA
approved
TMDL
s.
4B.A
lllistin
gsforthisw
ater
body
arebe
ingaddressedby
regulatory
actio
nsothe
rthanTM
DLs.
4C.Thisw
ater
body
isim
pacted
by“pollutio
n”rather
than
bya“pollutant.”
³Thissegmen
twas
previouslylistedfor“Nitrogen
”on
thebasis
ofdata
forseveralform
sofn
itrogen
.State
Boardstaffreq
uested
that
nitratebe
assessed
separately,resultin
ginaseparate
listin
g.
5.Eviden
ceshow
satleaston
euseisno
tsup
ported
(and
aTM
DLisne
eded
).Althou
ghthecategory
didno
tchange,insomecasesthe
TMDL
requ
iremen
tsmay
have
changed.Re
fertoAp
pend
ixHform
ore
inform
ation.
²Category.TheIntegrated
Repo
rtinclud
estw
ocategorie
sand
subcategoriesfor
water
body
pollutant
combinatio
nsinwhich
theapplicablestandard
isno
tattaine
d(“listin
gs”).The
subcategoriesc
anbe
summarize
das
follows:
¹Com
pletionYe
ar.For
listin
gswith
USEPA
approved
TMDL
s,thisrefersto
theUSEPA
approvalyear.For
listin
gsstillne
edingTM
DLs,thecompletionyear
istheprojectedLaho
ntan
Water
Boardactio
ndate.For
listin
gsbe
ingaddressedby
actio
nsothe
rthanTM
DLs,thecompletionyear
istheprojectedattainmen
tdateforw
ater
quality
standards.
Page
6of
6R6
2012
Integrated
Repo
rt13
-12
ENCLOSURE 2 STAFF REPORT WITH APPENDICES A-C AND APPENDIX L INCLUDED.
THE ADDITIONAL APPENDICES OF THE STAFF REPORT ARE LOCATED AT: http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/lahontan/water_issues/programs/tmdl/303d_305b/
13-13
13-14
LAHONTAN REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD
CLEAN WATER ACT SECTIONS 305(b) AND 303(d)
INTEGRATED REPORT FOR THE LAHONTAN REGION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
April 2014
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
13-15
1Draft 2012 Integrated Report for the Lahontan Region
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Integrated Report provides the draft recommendations of the staff of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Lahontan Region (Water Board) for changes to the federal Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 303(d) list of impaired surface water bodies, and, pursuant to CWA section 305(b), analyzes the extent to which all navigable waters in the region are meeting the minimum fishable/swimmable beneficial uses. The water quality assessment applies to surface waters of the United States within the Lahontan Region.
Following a public participation process, the Water Board will consider adopting recommendations to the State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) for inclusion in a statewide Section 303(d) list. The statewide list will be submitted to, and considered for approval by, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). The Lahontan Water Board will not take action on staff’s Section 305(b) assessment, but may provide direction to staff. Public comments will be accepted on Section 305(b) issues and included in the administrative record.
This staff report provides background on the assessment process and the methods used. Results and recommendations are summarized in tables in the appendices. The appendices also include “fact sheets” for specific water body-pollutant combinations that provide more detailed information and links to online data and reference documents.
The 303(d) assessment focused on data from the Lahontan Region’s Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP), data submitted by stakeholders, and data affecting the status of current (2010) Section 303(d) listings. This assessment process was more intensive than the Water Board’s previous Section 303d list updates. Over 2,320 fact sheets, each assessing a unique water body-pollutant combination, were developed during this evaluation in comparison to the 2010 listing cycle when approximately 1,250 fact sheets were developed. These fact sheets are included in Appendix I of this document. The fact sheets contain over 3,550 lines of evidence. The proposed updates include new listings to the 303(d) list, delistings from the 303(d) list, category changes to existing 303(d) listings, and other modifications. The proposed updates for the section 303(d) list include:
New Listings: 1. Bijou Park Creek: iron, oil and grease, 2. Carson River, West Fork (Headwaters to Woodfords): chloride, sulfates, total dissolved
solids, turbidity 3. Carson River, West Fork (Woodfords to Paynesville): chloride, nitrate, sulfates, total
dissolved solids, turbidity 4. Donner Lake: chlordane, arsenic 5. Indian Creek: chloride, dissolved oxygen 6. Littlerock Reservoir: mercury, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) 7. Silverwood Reservoir: mercury, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) 8. Lake Arrowhead: mercury 9. Lake Gregory: mercury
New Listings (being addressed by USEPA approved TMDL):1. Bijou Park Creek: phosphorus, total nitrogen as N, turbidity2. Indian Creek Reservoir: dissolved oxygen
13-16
2Draft 2012 Integrated Report for the Lahontan Region
New Listings (being addressed other than an action of a TMDL): 1. Snowshoe Thompson ditch 1: phosphorus, TKN
Category Changes: 1. Blackwood Creek: phosphorus, nitrogen 2. Heavenly Valley Creek (USFS to Trout Creek): sediment 3. Heavenly Valley Creek (source to USFS boundary): phosphorus 4. Trout Creek (above HWY 50): nitrogen, phosphorus 5. Trout Creek (below HWY 50): nitrogen, phosphorus 6. Truckee River (above Christmas Valley): phosphorus 7. Truckee River (below Christmas Valley): phosphorus 8. Ward Creek: nitrogen, phosphorus, sedimentation/siltation
New Delistings: 1. Clearwater Creek: sedimentation/siltation 2. Amargosa River (Willow Creek confluence to Badwater): arsenic
Modifications:1. Amargosa River (Upper Canyon to Willow Creek confluence): arsenic (changes to
mapping)2. Amargosa River (Willow Creek confluence to Badwater): arsenic (changes to mapping) 3. Pathogens in some cases changed to fecal coliform to align with our Basin Plan
objective4. All water bodies were remapped using the National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) in
1:24,000 resolution to provide greater flexibility and efficiency when performing analysis using a geographic information system (GIS). As a result the water body size calculations for Integrated Report water bodies will change due to the greater accuracy of this higher resolution data set.
When adopting recommendations for updated Section 303(d) lists, Regional Water Boards are required to identify dates for completion of Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs). Most of the recommended new listings are likely to be addressed through update of water quality standards or alternative regulatory programs, rather than through development of TMDLs.
The Section 305(b) assessment focuses on attainment of “core” beneficial uses related to protection of aquatic life, human health, and recreation. Water bodies are placed in one of five categories depending on whether or not applicable standards are attained, and whether there is sufficient information to evaluate whether a specific pollutant is exceeding the water quality objectives for a specific water body. In some cases, the water quality objectives in the Basin Plan are set at levels that were representative of ambient conditions, and the ambient water quality is typically higher quality than levels necessary to protect beneficial uses.
Please refer to Appendix L for any modifications to the draft Staff Report since release for public comment on April 4, 2014.
13-17
3Draft 2012 Integrated Report for the Lahontan Region
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary………………………………………………………………………..……...1
Table of Contents…………………………………………………………………………..…..….3
Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………………4
Data and Information Used for Assessment………………………………………………........5
Water Quality Standards and Criteria Used for Assessment…………………………..……..6
Development of the Proposed Section 303(d) List Changes……………………………........7
Region-Specific Assessment Issues……………………………………………………….........8
Proposed Changes to the Section 303(d) List………………………………………………….9
Water bodies of Special Interest Evaluated This Listing Cycle…………………………….…10
TMDL Scheduling……………………………………………………………………………........10
Determination of Beneficial Use Support & Integrated Report Water Body Categories……11
List of Appendices
Appendix A: Proposed New and Revised Section 303(d) Listings for 2012
Appendix B: Proposed Delistings for the 2012 Assessment Cycle
Appendix C: Water Body-Pollutant Combinations With Standards Exceedance That Are Not Recommended For Listing
Appendix D: Category 2 Water Body Segments
Appendix E: Category 3 Water Body Segments
Appendix F: Category 4A Water Body Segments
Appendix G: Category 4B Water Body Segments
Appendix H: Category 5 Water Body Segments
Appendix I: Fact Sheets - Region 6 Comprehensive Report (access water body-pollutant combination of interest though table of contents)
Appendix J: Miscellaneous Changes Report
Appendix K: References
Appendix L: Modifications to draft Staff Report
Appendix M: Comments Received and Responses to Comments
13-18
4Draft 2012 Integrated Report for the Lahontan Region
INTRODUCTION
The federal Clean Water Act (CWA) gives states the primary responsibility for protecting and restoring surface water quality. In California, the State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) and nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards (Regional Water Boards) administer the CWA and serve as the agencies with the primary responsibility for implementing CWA requirements, including developing and implementing programs to ensure attainment of water quality standards. Water quality standards include designated beneficial uses of water bodies, criteria or water quality objectives (numeric or narrative limits) established to protect those beneficial uses, and policies to prevent or limit the degradation of water bodies.
Section 305(b) of the CWA requires each state to report biennially to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) on the condition of its surface waters. CWA Section 303(d) requires each State to develop, update, and submit to the USEPA a list of polluted surface waters or water quality limited surface water body segments (distinct portions of rivers, streams, or lakes) that are “impaired or threatened” – meaning they contain pollutants at levels that exceed protective water quality criteria and standards. The list is commonly referred to as the 303(d) list. Impaired water bodies or segments on the 303(d) list must be addressed through the development of Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs), through alternative regulatory programs (e.g., waivers or National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permits), or through revisions in water quality standards.
The requirement to develop TMDLs applies to “pollutants” as defined in the CWA. Pollutants include chemicals, sediment, and temperature. TMDLs are not required for impairment due to “pollution.” Pollution includes factors such as flow alteration, hydromodification, and alterations in aquatic habitat that are not related to specific pollutants.
Under the 2004 Water Quality Policy for Developing California’s Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list (“Listing Policy”), the nine Regional Water Boards assess information and data, conduct public participation processes and adopt recommendations to the State Water Board for inclusion of specific water body-pollutant combinations (“listings”) in a statewide Section 303(d) list. Following additional participation, the State Water Board submits a statewide list to the USEPA. The USEPA may approve or disapprove specific listings, and may add water body-pollutant combinations to the list. The most recent USEPA–approved Section 303(d) list for California is for the 2010 assessment cycle and is available at the State Water Board’s website at 2010 Integrated Report (Clean Water Act Section 303(d) List / 305(b) Report) - Statewide.
In coordination with the Section 303(d) assessment, the State Water Board has historically prepared a statewide Section 305(b) Report with information on the total miles of streams, acres of lakes, and areas of other surface water bodies that support or do not support beneficial uses. In the past, the Section 303(d) list has been updated every two years, but the USEPA and the State Water Board have developed a new strategy moving forward to provide for a more efficient Integrated Report process. The strategy involves dividing California into thirds by Regional Water Boards and submitting an Integrated Report for three Regional Water Boards per listing cycle. For the 2012 listing cycle, the Integrated Report will consist only of data submitted for Regional Water Boards 1, 6, and 7 followed by the immediate solicitation for the 2014 listing cycle, which will rely on the continuous submittal capabilities of the California Environmental Data Exchange Network (CEDEN). Though Region 6 would not be included in the Integrated Report process for another six years in 2020, the new process allows for Regional Water Boards in the “off-cycle” to evaluate high-priority data and make decisions related directly to listings and de-listings, which could be submitted for inclusion into the current listing cycle. The Section 303(d)/305(b) assessment process is not a regulatory action, and
13-19
5Draft 2012 Integrated Report for the Lahontan Region
does not require environmental analysis under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because the Water Board is not taking a discretionary action that may affect the environment. Project-specific CEQA documents will be prepared as appropriate for TMDLs and other regulatory actions used to address water body-pollutant combinations on the Section 303(d) list.
This staff report summarizes Water Board staff’s recommendations and provides background on the assessment process. The appendices to this report included more detailed “fact sheets” with recommendations for specific water body-pollutant combinations. Fact Sheets are used in the creation of and are included in the Integrated Report.
DATA AND INFORMATION USED FOR THE ASSESSMENT
Solicited information and data. The Integrated Report process begins with a formal "Notice of Public Solicitation of Water Quality Data and Information for the California Integrated Report (Notice of Public Solicitation)" sent to interested parties subscribed to the Region 6 TMDLs – 303(d) List (Impaired Waters) e-mail subscription list. A copy of the 2012 data solicitation letter can be found here: 2012 Notice of Public Solicitation of Water Quality Data and Information. The State Board sent the Notice of Public Solicitation for the 2012 Integrated Report on January 19, 2010 and specified June 30, 2010 as the data submission deadline. The deadline was extended from June 30 to August 30, 2010. Information gathered was used for assessing overall surface water quality conditions and identifying impaired waters (waters not meeting water quality standards), for the development of the 2012 California Integrated Report. State Water Board received over 100 data submissions. Each data submission includes multiple data sets for one or more pollutants. Data sources included government agencies, municipalities, environmental groups, citizen groups, and receiving water data from the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) dischargers.
Electronic copies of the submitted data are included in the electronic administrative record of theassessment process. The stakeholder data and data collected through the State Water Board’s SurfaceWater Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) include:
Stakeholder data:
Data for turbidity in Truckee River collected July 2008-August 2010, submitted by the California Department of Water Resources (2010).
Data from discharger self-monitoring reports for the Heavenly Mountain Resort ski area at Lake Tahoe collected October 2007–September 2009, submitted by Heavenly Valley Ski Resort (2010).
Data for temperature in Rush Creek (below Grant Lake) and Lee Vining Creek collected Oct. 1999-October 2008, submitted by Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (2009).
Data for temperature, nutrients, and bacteria in Heavenly Valley Creek (USFS boundary to Trout Creek) and various water bodies in Alpine County collected July 1980-June 2010, submitted by South Tahoe Public Utility District (2010).
SWAMP. In addition to various stakeholder data submissions, data collected through the State Board’s Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) were also considered during the 2012 listing cycle. SWAMP conducts carefully designed, externally reviewed, monitoring programs conducted at both the statewide and regional levels that support water resource management in California. SWAMP produces high-quality information that State and Regional Water Board staff use to evaluate the condition of all surface waters throughout California.
SWAMP data:
13-20
6Draft 2012 Integrated Report for the Lahontan Region
SWAMP. RWB6 Donner Lake Fish Bioaccumulation Status. SWAMP. RWB6 Trend Monitoring for 2006 and 2007. SWAMP. Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008. Contaminant
concentrations measured in fish tissue throughout waters of the state. SWAMP. Statewide Perennial Streams Assessment 2008. SWAMP. Statewide Reference Condition Management Plan 2008. SWAMP. Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008. Sediment toxicity and sediment contaminant
concentrations measured in selected large rivers throughout California. SWAMP. Statewide Project Urban Pyrethroid Status Monitoring.
The individual fact sheets for each assessed water body-pollutant combination contain specific references to the data upon which each proposed 303(d) listing decision is based. The electronic versions of these fact sheets also contain Internet links to the files and documents containing the actual data and information used.
Data for future listing cycles will be required to be submitted through CEDEN (California Environmental Data Exchange Network) except in the few instances that CEDEN cannot accept the data type (i.e. flow data, qualitative data, narrative data). This is to ensure adequate quality assurance measures are taken and provided with the data.
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS AND CRITERIA USED FOR ASSESSMENT
Water Board staff assessed data using regulatory limits, when available. Regulatory limits used include water quality objectives (numeric and narrative) in the Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (Basin Plan), and standards for toxic chemical promulgated by the USEPA under the California Toxics Rule (40 CFR 131.27). Water Board staff also used the USEPA’s National Recommended Water Quality Criteria, and California water quality criteria developed by the Department of Public Health and the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA). California drinking water standards (Maximum Contaminant Levels or MCLs) apply as regulatory limits to most ambient, untreated surface and ground waters under the narrative water quality objectives for “Chemical Constituents” and “Radioactivity” in the Basin Plan.
Most of the Lahontan Region is undeveloped public land where natural water quality is not expected to be significantly affected by human activities. Very good water quality occurs in many of the high elevation lakes and streams of the eastern Sierra Nevada. Most of the narrative and numeric water quality objectives in the Basin Plan are based on protection of natural background quality, rather than on state or federal criteria for protection of specific beneficial uses. The Basin Plan contains hundreds of numeric site-specific objectives (SSOs) for individual water bodies, for constituents such as Total Dissolved Solids (TDS), chloride, nitrogen, phosphorus, and sulfate. According to the “Tributary Rule”, numeric water quality objectives for specific surface water bodies apply upstream to tributaries that do not have SSOs. In many cases the Lahontan Region’s SSOs are much more stringent than the state or federal criteria for the same constituents established in connection with specific beneficial uses. Exceedances of antidegradation-based SSOs do not necessarily indicate that beneficial uses are impaired as water quality levels may be of higher quality than that needed to provide for the beneficial use.
Most of the current SSOs were developed using monitoring data available in the early 1970s. In some cases, individual SSOs are based on very limited data, and they probably do not reflect the full range of seasonal, annual, and inter annual variability in constituent concentrations. Due to this limitation, some Section 303(d) listings for exceedances of SSOs may be addressed
13-21
7Draft 2012 Integrated Report for the Lahontan Region
through update of the SSOs (using more recent data to define reference conditions), rather than through TMDLs or other regulatory programs.
DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPOSED SECTION 303(D) LIST CHANGES
Listing Policy. The State Water Board’s 2004 Listing Policy, which provides a standardized approach for developing California’s section 303(d) list, can be viewed and downloaded here: State Water Board’s Listing Policy. The policy was developed through a stakeholder process and reflects political compromises in addition to statistical and scientific considerations.
The Listing Policy establishes requirements for data quality, data quantity, and administration of the listing process. The Policy provides standard rules for making listing or delisting decisions based on different kinds of data and a standard statistical test identifying impairments in water. The Listing Policy mandates listing for toxicants if water quality standards or criteria are exceeded more than three percent of the time, and mandates listing for “conventional” or other pollutants if standards or criteria are exceeded more than ten percent of the time. The Policy includes tables based on a “binomial model” that summarize the numbers of allowable exceedances associated with specific ranges of sample numbers. The number of exceedances required for listings is calculated using hypothesis testing based on binomial statistics. The minimum sample numbers required for listing are smaller than those statistically required by the model. As few as two samples with two exceedances are needed to list for toxicants (defined to include nutrients), and five samples with five exceedances are needed to list for “conventional” pollutants. The Listing Policy is structured so it is more difficult to delist a water body-pollutant combination than to list it; more samples and fewer exceedances are required to delist.
The Listing Policy includes other “listing factors” that may be used in certain situations where specific conditions apply. For example, data related to an antidegradation-based standard may be assessed by evaluating baseline-trend conditions. Water Board staff used the baseline-trend provisions to evaluate compliance with antidegradation-based water quality objectives such as those for temperature, pH, and suspended sediment. The Listing Policy also allows the Water Boards to make “weight of evidence” arguments for or against listing and delisting.
For water quality standards that are expressed as annual means (or some other measurement of central tendency) the Listing Policy requires that data be transformed before being assessed. Thus annual mean “data points” are treated as if they were single samples when evaluating numbers of exceedances in relation to numbers of samples. Most of the SSOs in the Basin Plan are expressed as annual means.
The Listing Policy allows data to be rejected in assessment decisions if acceptable quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) procedures were not followed or if the data are not spatially or temporally representative of the water body. Some the datasets assessed for the 2012 had inadequate documentation of QA/QC, and some of the datasets were not temporally representative.
The Regional Water Boards first took action on Section 303(d) list recommendation in the 1990 assessment cycle. Some of the Lahontan Region’s current listings date from that time. Assessment criteria have changed over time, and some of the older listings would not be required under the current Listing Policy. Delisting is allowed in these circumstances.
The Listing Policy requires the data assessed and staff recommendations for specific water body-pollutant combinations to be documented in water body “fact sheets.” Fact sheets consist of “lines of evidence” (LOEs) summarizing the applicable standards and the data for a water
13-22
8Draft 2012 Integrated Report for the Lahontan Region
body of segment in relation to a specific beneficial use, and “decisions,” including staff recommendations regarding listing and beneficial use support.
CalWQA Database. In 2007, the web-based interface known as California Water Quality Assessment (CalWQA) database was developed to support the creation of the California Integrated Report (CWA Section 303(d) List / 305(b) Report). The State Water Board manages CalWQA which stores detailed water quality assessment information to evaluate California water bodies. State and Regional Water Board staff uses the CalWQA database to store LOEs and make decisions on pollutants found in water bodies within their respective regions. The database is designed so information can be exported to the USEPA’s Assessment Database at the end of each assessment cycle and the information can be stored for future assessment cycles.
REGION-SPECIFIC ASSESSMENT ISSUES
Sampling frequency and environmental variability. Most of the data assessed for the 2010 Integrated Report cycle is from the SWAMP. The 2006-2010 SWAMP samples were limited to quarterly collection and analysis due to funding restraints. The data is collected to illustrate long- term trends and changes in water quality but quarterly sampling is not comprehensive enough to accurately determine impairments in water quality. In some cases, such as dry streams due to drought in the upper Mojave River watershed, fewer than four SWAMP samples per year per station were collected. Because most of the Lahontan Region’s SSOs are expressed as annual means, the low sampling frequency resulted in averages based on only one to four samples per year.
Annual averages based on samples collected at quarterly or less frequent intervals do not adequately reflect the range of diel, seasonal and annual variations in pollutant concentrations and the environmental conditions (including streamflows) that typically affect pollutant concentrations.
In addition to year to year variations between wet and dry years, and normal seasonal temperature extremes, surface waters of the Lahontan Region are affected by extreme climatic and hydrological conditions that can change over short time periods. Water chemistry can be affected by rapid spring snowmelt, flooding from rain on snow events, severe summer thunderstorms, desert flash floods, and atmospheric deposition of smoke from wildfires. Seasonal changes in land use, such as the timing of diversions for pasture irrigation, the dates when summer livestock grazing begins and ends, and the timing of surges in recreational use (e.g., hiking, mountain biking, informal camping, user created trails) can have significant effects on pollutant concentrations.
Diel variations in flows during the snowmelt season can cause corresponding variation in constituent concentrations. The timing of peak snowmelt varies from year to year depending on factors such as air temperature, snowpack depth, precipitation (e.g., rain-on-snow storms.)
To meet monitoring objectives, according to USEPA: “States should ensure that the selected monitoring design yields scientifically valid results and meets the needs of the decision maker. The monitoring design should incorporate appropriate methods to control decision errors and balance the possibility of making incorrect decisions. The levels of precision and confidence should be appropriate to the monitoring objective and the type of data collected.”
(cited from the Recommended Elements of a State Monitoring Program).”
13-23
9Draft 2012 Integrated Report for the Lahontan Region
Because our region has such wide fluctuations, more than two to four samples per year are necessary to characterize ambient conditions and provide staff with confidence in determining impairment.
Natural Sources of Pollutants. The geology and climate of the Lahontan Region leads to local high concentrations of “pollutants” that come entirely from natural sources. These include arsenic, fluoride, boron, and mercury from geothermal and volcanic sources, and radioactive elements and elemental phosphorus from the Sierra Nevada granitic soils. Due to evaporative concentration, salts and trace elements such as arsenic can accumulate to very high concentrations over geologic time in internally drained saline lakes and groundwater basins. Because of the undeveloped nature of most of the Lahontan region and the consequent lack of industrial or agricultural sources of metals and trace elements, it is relatively easy to conclude that exceedances
of standards in geothermally influenced and inland saline waters are entirely due to natural sources.
In 1989, the Water Board adopted Basin Plan amendments designating most waters of the Lahontan Region, including waters with poor quality due to natural sources, for the Municipal and Domestic Supply (MUN) beneficial use. The Water Board’s rationale was that, because of the scarcity of water in much of the Region, even poor quality water might be in demand for treatment and domestic use in the future. Since the Basin Plan applies drinking water standards (MCLs) to untreated ambient waters that are designated for the MUN use, the unforeseen result of the designation was the potential for Section 303(d) listing of “naturally impaired” waters.
In past assessment cycles, Water Board staff justified delisting or not listing waters with standards exceedances entirely due to natural sources of pollutants. The 2004 Listing Policy is silent on natural sources.
PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE SECTION 303(d) LIST
Appendices A through B show the proposed changes the Section 303(d) list for the 2012 assessment cycle. The rationales for Section 303(d) listing and delisting decisions are documented in “fact sheets” in Appendix I. Appendices A, B, and C group water bodies by watershed from north to south in the Lahontan Region; appendices D through I, produced by the CalWQA database, list water bodies alphabetically by name.
Proposed new listings to the current 303(d) list includes new water body segment-pollutant combinations where a TMDL is needed, or are otherwise being addressed by a USEPA approved TMDL or pollution control requirements other than a TMDL. Proposed new listings include:
List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list): 21
List on 303(d) list (being addressed by a USEPA approved TMDL): 4
List on 303(d) list (being addressed by an action other than a TMDL): 2
Proposed new delistings can be found in Appendix B and include 2 water body-pollutant combinations.
Proposed Category Changes to current 303(d) list. A number of water bodies- pollutant combinations considered this listing cycle were changed from requiring a TMDL (Category 5) to
13-24
10Draft 2012 Integrated Report for the Lahontan Region
being addressed by a USEPA approved TMDL. For additional information, refer to the water body-pollutant “fact sheets” in Appendix I. New listings are not recommended for 10 water body-pollutant combinations where standards were exceeded according to the statistical provisions of the Listing Policy’s binomial model, but where the data are not temporally representative. Additional reasons for not listing apply in some cases. These water body-pollutant combinations and justification for not listing as impaired are shown in Appendix C.
WATER BODIES OF SPECIAL INTEREST EVALUATED THIS LISTING CYCLE
Truckee River TMDL. This TMDL requires reductions in sediment loading to the Truckee River and specifically sets the following targets to achieve the TMDL: 1) water column target is an annual 90th percentile value of less than or equal to 25 milligrams per liter (mg/L) suspended sediment, as measured at Farad (USGS gauge 10346000); 2) implementation targets to restore legacy disturbed sites, apply road deicing and traction materials using BMPs and recover it to the maximum extent practicable, implement BMPs at ski areas to control erosion and sedimentation into streams, and decommission or improve dirt roads. Several responsible parties have implemented projects and sediment reducing activities over the past several years, but a comprehensive assessment and evaluation of the implemented actions has not been completed relative to the TMDL targets. Though the total suspended sediment data shows the Truckee River meets the TMDL sediment target since 2004, consistent exceedances of the turbidity water quality objective for the past several years raises concern about effectiveness of the implemented actions and the other TMDL targets. Because total suspended sediment is closely related to turbidity, the fact that the total suspended sediment target is met while the turbidity objective is not met must be further investigated. Either additional implementation measures are needed to reduce loads or the current sediment and turbidity water quality objectives may not accurately account for natural conditions. Therefore, Lahontan Water Board staff determined that the Truckee River is not ripe for delisting for sedimentation/siltation at this time.
TMDL SCHEDULING
The Listing Policy requires that dates for completion of TMDLs are identified for all listed water body-pollutant combinations, and includes a list of criteria for determining dates.
For water bodies that still need TMDLs, the proposed TMDL completion dates shown in the fact sheets are the years that TMDLs are expected to be brought before the Water Board (TMDLs are often, but not always, adopted as Basin Plan amendments). The USEPA expects TMDLs to be completed no later than 13 years after the list update cycle when the water body-pollutant combination was first listed. The TMDLs for listing on the current 2008 303(d) list are projected to be completed no later than 2021. TMDLs for proposed new listings in the Lahontan Region are projected to be completed no later than 2025.
Short term priorities for Regional Water Board work on TMDLs are set one-year at a time with annual workplans for the TMDL program. Priorities and estimated completion dates can change from year to year based on factors such as budget limitations and the need for additional monitoring to confirm impairment and/or provide data for use in TMDL development.
Most of the existing and new listings for the Lahontan Region are likely to be addressed in ways other than TMDLs. Some of the older listings were based on limited information and data, and additional monitoring may justify delisting. Other listings are likely to be addressed through changes in water quality standards or recognition that the listings are being addressed through alternative regulatory programs.
13-25
11Draft 2012 Integrated Report for the Lahontan Region
DETERMINATION OF BENEFICIAL USE SUPPORT AND INTEGRATED REPORT WATER BODY CATEGORIES
The 2012 assessment under CWA Section 305(b) of whether beneficial uses are being supported focuses primarily on a group of “core” beneficial uses related to human health, aquatic habitat, and recreation, although other beneficial uses may be assessed. For each LOE in the CalWQA database, Regional Water Board staff must enter a beneficial use rating of “Fully Supporting,” “Not Supporting,” or “Insufficient Information.”
The database uses the beneficial use support ratings together with recommendations regarding listing to place each water body-pollutant combination into one of five Integrated Report categories. Brief descriptions of the categories are as follows:
Category 1: Evidence shows that all core beneficial uses are supported in relation to the specific pollutants assessed.
Category 2: Evidence shows that at least some core beneficial uses are supported in relation to the specific pollutants assessed. Other core uses either were not assessed, or the available data were rated insufficient for assessment of beneficial use support.
Category 3: Evidence is insufficient to support determinations in relation to the specific pollutants assessed.
Category 4A: Evidence shows at least one use is not supported but a TMDL has been developed and approved by the USEPA (This category applies only to waters with all of their listings addressed by USEPA-approved TMDLs).
Category 4B: Evidence shows at least one use is not supported but a TMDL is not needed because an existing regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in the attainment of the water quality standard within a reasonable, specified time frame (The category applies only to waters with all of their listings addressed by alternative regulatory programs).
Category 4C: Evidence shows at least one use is not supported but a TMDL is not needed because the impairment is not caused by a “pollutant” as defined by CWA.
Category 5: Evidence shows at least one use is not supported (and a TMDL is needed).
Categories 4A, 4B, and 5 comprise the Section 303(d) list. For listings in categories 4B and 5C, the fact sheets include projected attainment dates for water quality standards.
The USEPA’s category system equates exceedances of water quality standards or criteria with non-support of beneficial uses. In the Lahontan region, the data assessed are too limited to support conclusions that uses are “fully supported.” For example, most of the assessed waters have no biological data available to evaluate support of aquatic habitat uses. Staff used the “Insufficient Information” use rating for most LOEs, and most water bodies are recommended for Category 3. The water body-pollutant combinations in Category 2 are mostly the result of “Fully Supporting” use ratings assigned by State Water Board staff for water body-pollutant combinations that were delisted during the 2006 assessment cycle.
Appendices D through H are reports produced by the CalWQA database that summarize all the recommended beneficial use category classifications. There are no water bodies recommended for Category 1 or Category 4C.
13-26
AP
PE
ND
IX A
- N
EW
AN
D R
EV
ISE
D 3
03(D
) LI
ST
FO
R 2
012
Waterbo
dyNew
Listing?
Pollu
tant
CompletionYe
ar¹
Category²
SurpriseVa
lleyHU
MillCreek(M
odoc
Coun
ty)
No
TotalD
issovledSolids
2021
5Bidw
ellCreek
No
TotalD
issovledSolids
2021
5
SusanRiver(He
adwaterstoSusanville)
No
Unkno
wntoxicity
2019
5SusanRiver(He
adwaterstoSusanville)
No
Mercury
2019
5SusanRiver(He
adwaterstoSusanville)
No
TotalD
issolvedSolids
2021
5SusanRiver(He
adwaterstoSusanville)
No
TotalN
itrogen
asN
2021
5SusanRiver(Susanvilleto
Litchfield)
No
Unkno
wntoxicity
2019
5SusanRiver(Susanvilleto
Litchfield)
No
Mercury
2019
5SusanRiver(Susanvilleto
Litchfield)
No
TotalD
issolvedSolids
2021
5SusanRiver(Susanvilleto
Litchfield)
No
Turbidity
2021
5SusanRiver(Susanvilleto
Litchfield)
No
Unkno
wntoxicity
2021
5SusanRiver(Litchfieldto
Hone
yLake)
No
Unkno
wntoxicity
2019
5SusanRiver(Litchfieldto
Hone
yLake)
No
Mercury
2019
5EagleLake
No
Nitrogen
2011
5EagleLake
No
Phosph
orus
2011
5Ho
neyLake
No
Arsenic
2019
5Ho
neyLake
No
Salinity
/TDS
/Chlorides
2019
5Ho
neyLake
Area
Wetland
sNo
Metals
2019
5Ho
neyLake
WildfowlM
anagem
entP
onds
No
Metals
2019
5Ho
neyLake
WildfowlM
anagem
entP
onds
No
Salinity
/TDS
/Chlorides
2019
5Ho
neyLake
WildfowlM
anagem
ent P
onds
No
TraceElem
ents
2019
5
TruckeeRiver
No
Sedimen
tatio
n/Silta
tion
2009
4ABron
coCreek
No
Sedimen
tatio
n/Silta
tion
2009
4AGray
Creek(NevadaCo
unty)
No
Sedimen
tatio
n/Silta
tion
2009
4ADo
nner
Lake
No
PriorityOrganics
2019
5Do
nner
Lake
Yes
Chlordane
2025
5Do
nner
Lake
Yes
Arsenic
2025
5SquawCreek
No
Sedimen
tatio
n/Silta
tion
2007
4A
SusanvilleHU
TruckeeRiverH
U
Page
1of
6R6
2012
Integrated
Repo
rt13
-27
AP
PE
ND
IX A
- N
EW
AN
D R
EV
ISE
D 3
03(D
) LI
ST
FO
R 2
012
Waterbo
dyNew
Listing?
Pollu
tant
CompletionYe
ar¹
Category²
Lake
Taho
eNo
Sedimen
tatio
n/Silta
tion
2011
4ALake
Taho
eNo
Nitrogen
2011
4ALake
Taho
eNo
Phosph
orus
2011
4ABlackw
oodCreek
No
Sedimen
tatio
n/Silta
tion
2008
5Blackw
oodCreek
No
Iron
2019
5Blackw
oodCreek
No
Nitrogen
2011
5Blackw
oodCreek
No
Phosph
orus
2011
5Co
ldCreek
No
TotalN
itrogen
asN
2021
4BGe
neralCreek
No
Iron
2019
5Ge
neralCreek
No
Phosph
orus
2012
5He
aven
lyVa
lleyCreek(sou
rceto
USFSbo
undary)
No
Chlorid
e20
195
Heaven
lyVa
lleyCreek(sou
rceto
USFSbo
undary)
No
Phosph
orus
2011
5He
aven
lyVa
lleyCreek(sou
rceto
USFSbo
undary)
No
Sedimen
tatio
n/Silta
tion
2002
5He
aven
lyVa
lleyCreek(USFSbo
undary
toTrou
tCreek)
No
Chlorid
e20
195
Heaven
lyVa
lleyCreek(USFSbo
undary
toTrou
tCreek)
No
Sedimen
tatio
n/Silta
tion
2011
5TallacCreek
No
Pathogen
s20
195
Trou
tCreek
(abo
veHW
Y50
)No
Iron
2019
5Trou
tCreek
(abo
veHW
Y50
)No
Nitrogen
2011
5Trou
tCreek
(abo
veHW
Y50
)No
Phosph
orus
2011
5Trou
tCreek
(abo
veHW
Y50
)No
Pathogen
s20
135
Trou
tCreek
(below
HWY50
)No
Iron
2019
5Trou
tCreek
(below
HWY50
)No
Nitrogen
2011
5Trou
tCreek
(below
HWY50
)No
Phosph
orus
2011
5Trou
tCreek
(below
HWY50
)No
Pathogen
s20
195
TruckeeRiver,Upp
er(abo
veCh
ristm
asVa
lley)
No
Iron
2019
5TruckeeRiver,Upp
er(abo
veCh
ristm
asVa
lley)
No
Phosph
orus
2011
5TruckeeRiver,Upp
er(below
Christm
asVa
lley)
No
Iron
2019
5TruckeeRiver,Upp
er(below
Christm
asVa
lley)
No
Phosph
orus
2011
5WardCreek
No
Iron
2019
5WardCreek
No
Nitrogen
2011
5WardCreek
No
Phosph
orus
2011
5WardCreek
No
Sedimen
tatio
n/Silta
tion
2011
5
Lake
Taho
eHU
Page
2of
6R6
2012
Integrated
Repo
rt13
-28
AP
PE
ND
IX A
- N
EW
AN
D R
EV
ISE
D 3
03(D
) LI
ST
FO
R 2
012
Waterbo
dyNew
Listing?
Pollu
tant
CompletionYe
ar¹
Category²
BijouPark
Creek
Yes
Iron
2025
5BijouPark
Creek
Yes
Oilandgrease
2025
5BijouPark
Creek
Yes
Phosph
orus
2025
5BijouPark
Creek
Yes
TotalN
itrogen
asN
2025
5BijouPark
Creek
Yes
Turbidity
2025
5WestF
orkCa
rson
RiverH
UCarson
River,WestF
ork(Headw
aterstoWoo
dfords)
No
Nitrogen
2019
5Carson
River,WestF
ork(Headw
aterstoWoo
dfords)
No³
nitrate
2019
5Carson
River,WestF
ork(Headw
aterstoWoo
dfords)
No
Phosph
orus
2019
5Carson
River,WestF
ork(Headw
aterstoWoo
dfords)
Yes
Chlorid
e20
255
Carson
River,WestF
ork(Headw
aterstoWoo
dfords)
Yes
Sulfate
2025
5Carson
River,WestF
ork(Headw
aterstoWoo
dfords)
Yes
TotalD
issolvedSolids
2025
5Carson
River,WestF
ork(Headw
aterstoWoo
dfords)
Yes
Turbidity
2025
5Carson
River,WestF
ork(W
oodfords
toPaynesville)
No
Nitrogen
2019
5Carson
River,WestF
ork(W
oodfords
toPaynesville)
No
Pathogen
s20
135
Carson
River,WestF
ork(W
oodfords
toPaynesville)
Yes
Chlorid
e20
255
Carson
River,WestF
ork(W
oodfords
toPaynesville)
Yes
Nitrate
2025
5Carson
River,WestF
ork(W
oodfords
toPaynesville)
Yes
Sulfate
2025
5Carson
River,WestF
ork(W
oodfords
toPaynesville)
Yes
TotalD
issolvedSolids
2025
5Carson
River,WestF
ork(W
oodfords
toPaynesville)
Yes
Turbidity
2025
5Carson
River,WestF
ork(Payne
svilleto
stateline)
No
Pathogen
s20
135
Snow
shoe
Thom
pson
Ditch1
Yes
Phosph
orus
2025
4BSnow
shoe
Thom
pson
Ditch1
Yes
TotalKjeldahlN
itrogen
2025
4B
Carson
River,EastFork
No
TotalD
issolvedSolids
2021
5WolfC
reek
(AlpineCo
unty)
No
Sedimen
tatio
n/Silta
tion
2019
5Indian
Creek(AlpineCo
unty)
No
Pathogen
s20
135
Indian
Creek(AlpineCo
unty)
Yes
Chlorid
e20
255
Indian
Creek(AlpineCo
unty)
Yes
DissolvedOxygen
2025
5Indian
CreekRe
servoir
No
Phosph
orus
2003
4AIndian
CreekRe
servoir
Yes
DissolvedOxygen
2003
4AAspe
nCreek
No
Metals
2019
4BBryant
Creek
No
Metals
2019
4B
EastFork
Carson
RiverH
U
Page
3of
6R6
2012
Integrated
Repo
rt13
-29
AP
PE
ND
IX A
- N
EW
AN
D R
EV
ISE
D 3
03(D
) LI
ST
FO
R 2
012
Waterbo
dyNew
Listing?
Pollu
tant
CompletionYe
ar¹
Category²
LeviathanCreek
No
Metals
2019
4BMon
itorC
reek
No
Alum
inum
2019
4BMon
itorC
reek
No
Iron
2019
5Mon
itorC
reek
No
Mangane
se20
195
Mon
itorC
reek
No
Silver
2019
5Mon
itorC
reek
No
Sulfate
2019
5Mon
itorC
reek
No
TotalD
issolvedSolids
2019
5
EastWalkerR
iver,abo
veBridgepo
rtRe
servoir
No
Pathogen
s20
274B
EastWalkerR
iver,below
Bridgepo
rtRe
servoir
No
Sedimen
tatio
n/Silta
tion
2019
5EastWalkerR
iver,below
Bridgepo
rtRe
servoir
No
Mangane
se20
215
EastWalkerR
iver,below
Bridgepo
rtRe
servoir
No
Turbidity
2021
5Bridgepo
rtRe
servoir
No
Nitrogen
2019
5Bridgepo
rtRe
servoir
No
Phosph
orus
2019
5Bridgepo
rtRe
servoir
No
Sedimen
tatio
n/Silta
tion
2019
5Bu
ckeyeCreek
No
Pathogen
s20
274B
Robinson
Creek(HWY39
5to
Bridgepo
rtRe
servoir)
No
Pathogen
s20
274B
Robinson
Creek(TwinLakes toHW
Y39
5)No
Pathogen
s20
274B
SwaugerC
reek
No
Pathogen
s20
274B
SwaugerC
reek
No
Phosph
orus
2010
5Bo
dieCreek
No
Mercury
2027
5
Mon
oLake
No
Salinity
/TDS
/Chlorides
2019
5
Mam
mothCreek(Headw
aterstoTw
inLakeso
utlet)
No
TotalD
issolvedSolids
2021
5Mam
mothCreek(TwinLakeso
utlettoOldMam
mothRo
ad)
No
Mercury
2019
5Mam
mothCreek(TwinLakeso
utlettoOldMam
mothRo
ad)
No
Mangane
se20
215
Mam
mothCreek(OldMam
mothRo
adto
HWY39
5)No
Mercury
2021
5Mam
mothCreek(OldMam
mothRo
adto
HWY39
5)No
Mangane
se20
215
Mam
mothCreek(OldMam
mothRo
adto
HWY39
5)No
TotalD
issovledSolids
2021
5Mam
mothCreek,un
amed
tributary(con
fluen
ceisne
arOld
Mam
mothRd
.)No
Arsenic
2021
5
Mon
oHU
EastWalkerR
iver
HU
Owen
sHU
Page
4of
6R6
2012
Integrated
Repo
rt13
-30
AP
PE
ND
IX A
- N
EW
AN
D R
EV
ISE
D 3
03(D
) LI
ST
FO
R 2
012
Waterbo
dyNew
Listing?
Pollu
tant
CompletionYe
ar¹
Category²
Mam
mothCreek,un
amed
tributary(con
fluen
ceisne
arOld
Mam
mothRd
.)No
Mercury
2021
5Hilto
nCreek
No
Oxygen,Dissolved
2021
5Ro
ckCreek(trib
utaryto
Owen
sRiver)
No
TotalD
issolvedSolids
2021
5Crow
leyLake
No
Ammon
ia20
195
Crow
leyLake
No
DissolvedOxygen
2019
5Ha
iwee
Reservoir
No
Copp
er20
195
Pleasant
ValleyRe
servoir
No
OrganicEnrichm
ent/LowDO
2019
5
Amargosa
River(Nevadabo
rder
toTecopa)
No
Arsenic
2021
5Am
argoas
River(Tecopa
toUpp
erCanyon
)No
Arsenic
2021
5Am
argosa
River(Upp
erCanyon
toIllow
Creekconfluen
ce)
NArsenic
2021
Mesqu
iteSprin
gs(In
yoCo
unty)
No
Arsenic
2021
5Mesqu
iteSprin
gs(In
yoCo
unty)
No
Boron
2021
5
SearlesL
ake
No
Salinity
/TDS
/Chlorides
2019
4BSearlesL
ake
No
TotalPetroleum
Hydrocarbo
ns20
194B
LittleRo
ckRe
servoir
No
Mangane
se20
215
LittleRo
ckRe
servoir
Yes
Mercury
2025
5
LittleRo
ckRe
servoir
Yes
Polychlorin
ated
biph
enyls(PC
Bs)
2025
5
Silverwoo
dLake
Yes
Mercuy
2025
5Silverwoo
dLake
Yes
Polychlorin
ated
biph
enyls(PC
Bs)
2025
5Lake
Arrowhe
adYes
Mercury
2025
5Lake
Gregory
Yes
Mercury
2025
5Ho
lcom
bCreek
No
TotalD
issolvedSolids
2021
5MojaveRiver(MojaveForksR
eservoirou
tlettoUpp
erNarrows)
No
Fluo
ride
2021
5MojaveRiver(Upp
erNarrowstoLower
Narrows)
No
Fluo
ride
2021
5MojaveRiver(Upp
erNarrowstoLower
Narrows)
No
Sulfates
2021
5MojaveRiver(Upp
erNarrowstoLower
Narrows)
No
TotalD
issolvedSolids
2021
5Crab
Creek
No
TotalD
issolvedSolids
2021
5
Amargosa
HU
Tron
aHU
MojaveHU
Antelope
HU
Page
5of
6R6
2012
Integrated
Repo
rt13
-31
AP
PE
ND
IX A
- N
EW
AN
D R
EV
ISE
D 3
03(D
) LI
ST
FO
R 2
012
Waterbo
dyNew
Listing?
Pollu
tant
CompletionYe
ar¹
Category²
SheepCreek
No
Nitrate
2021
5SheepCreek
No
TotalD
issolvedSolids
2021
5
4A.A
lllistin
gsforthisw
ater
body
arebe
ingaddressedby
USEPA
approved
TMDL
s.
4B.A
lllistin
gsforthisw
ater
body
arebe
ingaddressedby
regulatory
actio
nsothe
rthanTM
DLs.
4C.Thisw
ater
body
isim
pacted
by“pollutio
n”rather
than
bya“pollutant.”
³Thissegmen
twas
previouslylistedfor“Nitrogen
”on
thebasis
ofdata
forseveralform
sofn
itrogen
.State
Boardstaffreq
uested
that
nitratebe
assessed
separately,resultin
ginaseparate
listin
g.
5.Eviden
ceshow
satleaston
euseisno
tsup
ported
(and
aTM
DLisne
eded
).Althou
ghthecategory
didno
tchange,insomecasesthe
TMDL
requ
iremen
tsmay
have
changed.Re
fertoAp
pend
ixHform
ore
inform
ation.
²Category.TheIntegrated
Repo
rtinclud
estw
ocategorie
sand
subcategoriesfor
water
body
pollutant
combinatio
nsinwhich
theapplicablestandard
isno
tattaine
d(“listin
gs”).The
subcategoriesc
anbe
summarize
das
follows:
¹Com
pletionYe
ar.For
listin
gswith
USEPA
approved
TMDL
s,thisrefersto
theUSEPA
approvalyear.For
listin
gsstillne
edingTM
DLs,thecompletionyear
istheprojectedLaho
ntan
Water
Boardactio
ndate.For
listin
gsbe
ingaddressedby
actio
nsothe
rthanTM
DLs,thecompletionyear
istheprojectedattainmen
tdateforw
ater
quality
standards.
Page
6of
6R6
2012
Integrated
Repo
rt13
-32
AP
PE
ND
IX B
: RE
CO
MM
EN
DE
D D
ELI
ST
ING
S F
OR
201
2 A
SS
ES
SM
EN
T C
YC
LE
Waterbo
dyor
Segm
ent
Pollu
tant
Commen
tAd
ditio
nalInformation
EastWalkerT
ributariesH
U
Clearw
ater
Creek
sedimen
tatio
n/siltatio
nAp
plicablewater
quality
objectiveisattained
andoriginalbasis
for
listin
gwas
incorrect.
Staffrecom
men
datio
nsfor
Clearw
ater
Creek;Bioassessm
ent
Stud
y(Herbst1
995);C
learwater
CreekSurveys(TetraTech
2003
);refertofactsheetfor
Clearw
ater
CreekinAp
pend
ixI
Amargosa
RiverH
U
Amargosa
River(Willow
Creek
confluen
ceto
Badw
ater)
Arsenic
Orig
inallistin
gwas
flawed
andbasedon
insufficien
tinformation.
Nostateor
fede
ralaqu
aticlifecrite
riato
assesswhe
ther
aquatic
salinehabitatw
ithinthissegm
ento
fthe
Amargosa
Riverisb
eing
supp
ortedor
impaire
dby
arsenic.Da
tawereno
ttem
porally
represen
tativ
e.Arsenicisnaturally
high
inthiswaterbo
dy.
Refertofactsheetfor
Amargosa
River(Willow
Creekconfluen
ceto
Badw
ater)inAp
pend
ixI
Watersa
regrou
pedby
watershed
(HydrologicUnito
rHU).
Page
1of
1R6
2012
Integrated
Repo
rt13
-33
Thefollowingwaterbo
dypo
llutant
combinatio
nsmeetb
inom
ialm
odelcrite
riaforlisting(ListingPo
licyTables
3.1or
3.2)
buta
reno
trecom
men
dedforlistingfor
vario
usreason
s.Watersa
regrou
pedby
watershed
(HydrologicUnito
rHU).
Waterbo
dyor
Segm
ent
Pollu
tant
Type
ofStan
dard
Reason
That
ListingisNot
Recommen
ded
Lake
Taho
eHU
Hidd
enVa
lleyCreek
Phosph
orus
SSO
1
Data
areno
ttem
porally
represen
tativ
e(ListingPo
licysection6.1.5.3).Pho
spho
rusin
thiswatershed
isnaturally
occurringas
itisused
asareferencesiteforH
eavenlyVa
lley
Creek.
Taho
eKe
ysSailing
Lagoon
pHSSO
1Da
taareno
ttem
porally
represen
tativ
e(ListingPo
licysection6.1.5.3).
EastFork
Carson
RiverH
U
Carson
River,EastFork
Boron
SSO
1Da
taareno
ttem
porally
represen
tativ
e(ListingPo
licysection6.1.5.3).B
oron
inthis
watershed
arenaturally
occurringingeothe
rmalsourcesincluding
Grover
HotS
prings.
Carson
River,EastFork
Phosph
orus
SSO
1Da
tado
esno
tmeetthe
minim
umqu
ality
assurance/qu
ality
controlreq
uirm
ents.
(ListingPo
licysection6
.1.4).Re
sults
areno
tvaliddu
eto
holdingtim
eviolations.
Carson
River,EastFork
Sulfates
SSO
1Da
taareno
ttem
porally
represen
tativ
e(ListingPo
licysection6.1.5.3).Sulfatesinthis
watershed
arenaturally
occurringingeothe
rmalsourcesincluding
Grover
HotS
prings.
WestF
orkCa
rson
RiverH
U
Carson
River,WestF
ork(W
oodfords
toPaynesville)
Boron
SSO
1
Listingisno
trecom
men
dedat
thistim
ebe
causewater
quality
hasimproved
andthere
have
been
noexceed
ancesfor
25year
perio
dbe
tween1986
2010
.The
reis25
yearso
fdata
indicatin
gthat
theSSOismeet.
Dressle
rDitch
Turbidity
SSO
1Da
taareno
ttem
porally
represen
tativ
e(ListingPo
licysection6.1.5.3).
WestW
alkerR
iver
HU
WestW
alkerR
iver
boron
SSO
1
Data
areno
ttem
porally
represen
tativ
e(ListingPo
licysection6.1.5.3).B
oron
inthis
watershed
may
benaturally
occurringingeothe
rmalsourcesincluding
FalesH
otSprin
gs.
WestW
alkerR
iver
chlorid
eSSO
1Da
taareno
ttem
porally
represen
tativ
e(ListingPo
licysection6.1.5.3).
EastWalkerR
iver
HU
TwinLake,U
pper
Mercury
USEPA
evaluatio
nguideline
Data
isno
ttem
porally
orspatially
represen
tative(ListingPo
licysection6.1.5.3).B
ased
onthelim
iteddata
set,moreinform
ationisne
cessaryto
determ
inean
impairm
ent.
13-3
4
Amargosa
HU
Amargosa
River(Willow
Creek
confluen
ceto
Badw
ater)
Copp
erCT
R2
Data
areno
ttem
porally
represen
tativ
e(ListingPo
licySection6.1.5.3).O
nlyon
esample
pery
earisa
vailable,so
data
areno
ttem
porally
represen
tativeof
thecond
ition
sinthe
river,w
hich
arecharacterized
bygreatseasonaland
annu
alvaria
bilityinflo
ws.CT
Rsaltw
ater
aquatic
lifestandardsw
erede
velope
dform
arine/estuarineorganism
sand
are
nota
ppropriate
toevaluate
protectio
nof
organism
sininland
salinewaters.
1Site
SpecificObjective
2CT
R:CaliforniaToxics
Rule
13-3
5
AP
PE
ND
IX L
- M
odif
icat
ions
to
Dra
ft S
taff
Rep
ort
Chan
geCo
mmen
t
Adde
dSilverwoo
dLake
to30
3(d)
listfor
PCBs
andmercury
Listingadde
ddu
eto
anOEH
HAfishadvisory
andso
thisadditio
nwas
adde
dto
theweb
page
asan
adde
ndum
andinclud
edintheFinalStaffRe
port.
Removed
theCategory
5subcategories
Thisison
lyford
istinctioninCalW
QAbu
tthe
subcategories a
reno
trecognized
byUSEPA
.Changes
madeto
staffrep
orta
ndAp
pend
ixA
Appe
ndixAadditio
ns
Appe
ndixAon
lyrefle
cted
theprop
osed
listin
gsfrom
region
albo
ardstaff
durin
gthe20
10Integrated
Repo
rtcyle.A
ppen
dixAhasb
eenup
datedto
includ
eadditio
nallistings
recommen
dedby
StateBo
ardandUSEnvironm
ental
Protectio
nAg
ency
inthe20
10cycle.
Adde
dLake
GregoryandLake
Arrowhe
adto
303(d)
listfor
mercury
Commen
treceivedby
region
albo
ardrecommen
dedevaluatio
nof
individu
alfishspeciesrathe
rthancompo
sites.The
changesm
adeto
thedata
evaluatio
nresulte
dintw
oadditio
nallistings
basedon
theBioaccum
ulationOversight
Grou
pLakessurveyof
2007
2008
.
Adde
dUpp
erTw
inLake
(EastW
alkerH
U)mercury
toAp
pend
ixC
Commen
treceivedby
region
albo
ardrecommen
dedevaluatio
nof
individu
alfishspeciesrathe
rthancompo
sites.The
changesm
adeto
thedata
evaluatio
nresulte
dintw
oadditio
nallistings
basedon
theBioaccum
ulationOversight
Grou
pLakessurveyof
2007
2008
.Staffconclude
dthat
thelim
iteddata
forthis
speciifcwateb
odydidno
tsup
portlistin
g.
BijouCreekcategory
change
forturbidity,nitrogen
asN,and
phosph
orus
Finallistingde
cisio
nchangedfrom
"List
on30
3(d)
list(TM
DLrequ
ired)"to"List
on30
3(d)
list(be
ingaddressedby
USEPA
approved
TMDL
)"inrespon
seto
commen
tsreceived
bytheCityof
SouthLake
Taho
e.
13-3
6
13-37
13-38
13-39
13-40
13-41
App
endi
x M
– C
omm
ents
Rec
eive
d an
d R
espo
nse
to C
omm
ents
Com
men
ts
Res
pons
e
13-4
2
App
endi
x M
– C
omm
ents
Rec
eive
d an
d R
espo
nse
to C
omm
ents
Com
men
ts
Res
pons
e
13-4
3
App
endi
x M
– C
omm
ents
Rec
eive
d an
d R
espo
nse
to C
omm
ents
Com
men
ts
Res
pons
e
13-4
4
13-45
13-46
13-47
13-48
13-49
13-50
13-51
13-52
13-53
13-54
13-55
13-56
13-57
13-58
13-59
13-60
13-61
13-62
13-63
App
endi
x M
– C
omm
ents
Rec
eive
d an
d R
espo
nse
to C
omm
ents
Com
men
ts
Res
pons
es
CSL
T R
1: B
ased
on
mor
e ac
cura
te in
form
atio
n an
d pu
blic
co
mm
ents
rece
ived
, App
endi
x A
and
por
tions
of t
he 2
012
Inte
grat
ed R
epor
t hav
e be
en u
pdat
ed (i
.e.,
Sta
ff R
epor
t, A
ppen
dix
I [Fa
ct S
heet
s]) i
n se
vera
l way
s:
The
final
list
ing
deci
sion
for w
ater
body
-pol
luta
nt c
ombi
natio
n B
ijou
Par
k C
reek
-Iron
rem
ains
“Lis
t on
303(
d) li
st (T
MD
L re
quire
d lis
t). L
angu
age
in th
e W
ater
Boa
rd S
taff
Con
clus
ion
and
Dec
isio
n R
ecom
men
datio
n se
ctio
ns h
as b
een
revi
sed
to b
e co
nsis
tent
with
this
fina
l lis
ting.
For B
ijou
Par
k C
reek
wat
erbo
dy-p
ollu
tant
com
bina
tions
of N
(N
itrog
en),
P (P
hosp
horu
s), a
nd T
urbi
dity
the
final
list
ing
deci
sion
has
bee
n ch
ange
d fro
m “L
ist o
n 30
3(d)
Lis
t” to
“Lis
t on
303(
d) L
ist B
eing
add
ress
ed b
y U
SE
PA
app
rove
d TM
DL.
”
CSL
T R
2: T
he D
raft
2012
Inte
grat
ed R
epor
t tha
t was
ci
rcul
ated
for p
ublic
revi
ew a
nd c
omm
ent o
n A
pril
4, 2
014
indi
cate
s a
final
list
ing
deci
sion
for t
he w
ater
body
-pol
luta
nt
com
bina
tion:
Bijo
u P
ark
Cre
ek-Ir
on a
s “L
ist o
n 30
3(d)
list
(T
MD
L re
quire
d lis
t).” T
his
final
list
ing
deci
sion
rem
ains
un
chan
ged
and
the
text
has
bee
n ch
ange
d to
read
, “…
ther
e is
su
ffici
ent j
ustif
icat
ion
agai
nstf
or p
laci
ng th
is w
ater
seg
men
t-po
lluta
nt c
ombi
natio
n on
the
sect
ion
303(
d) li
st in
the
Wat
er
Qua
lity
Lim
ited
Seg
men
ts c
ateg
ory
(em
phas
is a
dded
).” (C
SLT
R
2 co
ntin
ued
on n
ext p
age.
)
13-6
4
App
endi
x M
– C
omm
ents
Rec
eive
d an
d R
espo
nse
to C
omm
ents
Com
men
ts
Res
pons
es
CSL
T R
2 (c
ontin
ued)
: The
Wat
er B
oard
agr
ees
that
sim
ilar t
o se
vera
l cre
eks
in th
e La
ke T
ahoe
Bas
in, B
ijou
Par
k C
reek
has
na
tura
lly h
igh
leve
ls o
f iro
n. T
he S
tate
and
Reg
iona
l Wat
er
Boa
rds
are
curre
ntly
exp
lorin
g op
tions
to a
ddre
ss w
ater
bod
ies
that
may
be
natu
rally
hig
h in
pol
luta
nts.
Unt
il th
e na
tura
l sou
rces
of
pol
luta
nts
are
addr
esse
d by
eith
er a
n ex
clus
ion
polic
y or
an
ambi
ent i
ron
conc
entra
tion
for B
ijou
Par
k C
reek
is d
evel
oped
by
the
Wat
er B
oard
, the
sec
onda
ry M
CL
(or m
axim
um c
onta
min
ant
leve
l) of
0.3
mg/
L is
app
lied
to e
valu
ate
com
plia
nce
with
the
MU
N
bene
ficia
l use
. The
sam
ple
resu
lts a
vaila
ble
for B
ijou
Par
k C
reek
in
dica
te th
at ir
on c
once
ntra
tions
mea
sure
d in
Bijo
u P
ark
Cre
ek
exce
ed th
e se
cond
ary
MC
L fo
r iro
n in
dica
ting
that
the
MU
N u
se is
no
t sup
porte
d. T
he ir
on c
once
ntra
tions
mea
sure
d in
nin
e of
nin
e sa
mpl
es e
valu
ated
for t
he M
UN
use
exc
eeds
the
seco
ndar
y M
CL
of 0
.3 m
g/L,
and
five
of t
he n
ine
sam
ples
exc
eeds
the
seco
ndar
y M
CL
by a
n or
der o
f mag
nitu
de (o
r 10
times
the
MC
L).
For f
utur
e as
sess
men
t cyc
les,
if a
nat
ural
sou
rce
excl
usio
n po
licy
is d
evel
oped
the
final
list
ing
deci
sion
for B
ijou
Par
k C
reek
-Iron
m
ay b
e re
-eva
luat
ed. A
dditi
onal
ly, t
his
listin
g m
ay b
e ad
dres
sed
thro
ugh
revi
sion
of t
he w
ater
qua
lity
obje
ctiv
e ra
ther
than
thro
ugh
a TM
DL.
CSL
T R
3: S
ee re
spon
se p
rovi
ded
on n
ext p
age.
13-6
5
App
endi
x M
– C
omm
ents
Rec
eive
d an
d R
espo
nse
to C
omm
ents
Com
men
ts
Res
pons
es
CSL
T R
4: A
s st
ated
in th
e W
ater
Boa
rd c
oncl
usio
n an
d de
cisi
on
reco
mm
enda
tion,
Bijo
u P
ark
Cre
ek is
an
upst
ream
trib
utar
y to
La
ke T
ahoe
. The
Wat
er B
oard
agr
ees
with
the
CS
LT th
at th
e sa
me
impl
emen
tatio
n m
easu
res
(red
uctio
n in
tran
spor
tatio
n-re
late
d em
issi
ons)
pre
scrib
ed in
the
Lake
Tah
oe T
MD
L ap
prov
ed
by U
SE
PA
on
Aug
ust 1
6, 2
011,
will
also
add
ress
inpu
ts o
f ni
troge
n th
at im
pact
Bijo
u P
ark
Cre
ek. (
See
App
endi
x I-
Fact
S
heet
for B
ijou
Par
k C
reek
– N
itrog
en fo
r mor
e de
tails
rega
rdin
g m
anag
emen
t mea
sure
s to
con
trol n
itrog
en.)
The
final
list
ing
deci
sion
s fo
r Bijo
u P
ark
Cre
ek -
Nitr
ogen
has
bee
n ch
ange
d fro
m
“Lis
t on
303(
d) li
st (T
MD
L re
quire
d lis
t) to
“Lis
t on
303(
d) li
st
(bei
ng a
ddre
ssed
by
US
EPA
app
rove
d TM
DL)
. The
Wat
er B
oard
co
nclu
sion
and
dec
isio
n re
com
men
datio
n as
soci
ated
with
the
wat
er b
ody
pollu
tant
com
bina
tion:
Bijo
u P
ark
Cre
ek- N
itrog
en h
as
been
upd
ated
to in
clud
e pe
rtine
nt in
form
atio
n fro
m th
e La
ke
Taho
e TM
DL
that
sup
port
this
app
roac
h. C
SLT
R4
cont
inue
d on
ne
xtpa
ge.
CSL
T R
3: A
s st
ated
in th
e W
ater
Boa
rd c
oncl
usio
n an
d de
cisi
on
reco
mm
enda
tion,
Bijo
u P
ark
Cre
ek is
an
upst
ream
trib
utar
y to
La
ke T
ahoe
. The
Wat
er B
oard
agr
ees
with
the
CS
LT th
at th
e sa
me
impl
emen
tatio
n m
easu
res
(man
agin
g ur
ban
runo
ff di
scha
rges
thro
ugh
impl
emen
tatio
n of
Cal
trans
’ and
CS
LT’s
po
lluta
nt lo
ad re
duct
ion
prog
ram
s, s
treet
sw
eepi
ng, c
ontro
lling
st
atio
nary
sou
rces
of d
ust)
that
are
pre
scrib
ed in
the
Lake
Tah
oe
TMD
L ap
prov
ed b
y U
SE
PA
on
Aug
ust 1
6, 2
011,
will
also
ad
dres
s in
puts
of p
hosp
horu
s th
at im
pact
Bijo
u P
ark
Cre
ek. (
See
A
ppen
dix
I- Fa
ct S
heet
for B
ijou
Par
k C
reek
– P
hosp
horu
s fo
r m
ore
deta
ils re
gard
ing
man
agem
ent m
easu
res
to c
ontro
l ph
osph
orus
.) Th
e fin
al li
stin
g de
cisi
ons
for B
ijou
Par
k C
reek
-P
hosp
horu
s ha
s be
en c
hang
ed fr
om “L
ist o
n 30
3(d)
list
(TM
DL
requ
ired
list)
to “L
ist o
n 30
3(d)
list
(bei
ng a
ddre
ssed
by
US
EP
A
appr
oved
TM
DL)
. The
Wat
er B
oard
con
clus
ion
and
deci
sion
re
com
men
datio
n as
soci
ated
with
the
wat
er b
ody-
pollu
tant
co
mbi
natio
n: B
ijou
Par
k C
reek
- Pho
spho
rus
have
bee
n up
date
d to
incl
ude
perti
nent
info
rmat
ion
from
the
Lake
Tah
oe T
MD
L th
at
supp
ort t
his
appr
oach
.
13-6
6
App
endi
x M
– C
omm
ents
Rec
eive
d an
d R
espo
nse
to C
omm
ents
Com
men
ts
Res
pons
es
CSL
T R
4 co
ntin
ued:
The
fina
l lis
ting
deci
sion
for B
ijou
Par
k C
reek
has
bee
n ch
ange
d fro
m “L
ist o
n 30
3(d)
list
(TM
DL
requ
ired
list)
to “L
ist o
n 30
3(d)
list
(bei
ng a
ddre
ssed
by
US
EP
A a
ppro
ved
TMD
L). T
he W
ater
Boa
rd c
oncl
usio
n an
d de
cisi
on re
com
men
datio
n as
soci
ated
with
the
wat
er b
ody
pollu
tant
com
bina
tion:
Bijo
u P
ark
Cre
ek- N
itrog
en h
as b
een
upda
ted
to in
clud
e pe
rtine
nt in
form
atio
n in
the
Lake
Tah
oe
TMD
L th
at s
uppo
rt th
is a
ppro
ach.
CSL
T R
5: A
s st
ated
in th
e W
ater
Boa
rd c
oncl
usio
n an
d de
cisi
on re
com
men
datio
n, B
ijou
Par
k C
reek
is a
n up
stre
am
tribu
tary
to L
ake
Taho
e. T
he m
ater
ial c
ausi
ng tu
rbid
ity
impa
irmen
t in
Bijo
u P
ark
cree
k in
clud
es b
oth
orga
nic
and
inor
gani
c su
spen
ded
and
diss
olve
d pa
rticl
es. I
mpl
emen
tatio
n of
co
ntro
l mea
sure
s pr
escr
ibed
in th
e La
ke T
ahoe
TM
DL,
ado
pted
by
US
EP
A o
n A
ugus
t 16
2011
, are
inte
nded
, in
part,
to re
duce
or
gani
c an
d in
orga
nic
fine
sedi
men
t par
ticle
s th
at a
re th
e m
ost
dom
inan
t pol
luta
nt c
ontri
butin
g to
the
impa
irmen
t of t
he la
ke’s
cl
arity
. Wat
er B
oard
sta
ff ac
know
ledg
e th
at m
any
of th
e sa
me
cont
rol m
easu
res
(sta
biliz
ing
and
re-v
eget
atin
g ro
ad s
houl
ders
, st
reet
sw
eepi
ng, i
nsta
lling
and
mai
ntai
ning
sto
rm w
ater
tre
atm
ent c
ontro
ls) b
eing
impl
emen
ted
to re
duce
fine
sed
imen
t fro
m e
nter
ing
Lake
Tah
oe a
nd it
s tri
buta
ries,
will
als
o ad
dres
s th
e tu
rbid
ity im
pairm
ent w
ithin
Bijo
u P
ark
Cre
ek.
(See
App
endi
x I-
Fact
She
et fo
r Bijo
u P
ark
Cre
ek –
Tur
bidi
ty fo
r mor
e de
tails
re
gard
ing
man
agem
ent m
easu
res
to c
ontro
l tur
bidi
ty a
nd
susp
ende
d se
dim
ents
.) C
SLT
R5
cont
inue
d on
nex
t pag
e. 13
-67
App
endi
x M
– C
omm
ents
Rec
eive
d an
d R
espo
nse
to C
omm
ents
Com
men
ts
Res
pons
es
CSL
T R
5 co
ntin
ued:
The
fina
l lis
ting
deci
sion
s fo
r Bijo
u P
ark
Cre
ek –
Tur
bidi
ty h
as b
een
chan
ged
from
“Lis
t on
303(
d) li
st
(TM
DL
requ
ired
list)
to “L
ist o
n 30
3(d)
list
(bei
ng a
ddre
ssed
by
US
EP
A a
ppro
ved
TMD
L). T
he W
ater
Boa
rd c
oncl
usio
n an
d de
cisi
on re
com
men
datio
n as
soci
ated
with
the
wat
er b
ody
pollu
tant
com
bina
tion:
Bijo
u P
ark
Cre
ek- T
urbi
dity
has
bee
n up
date
d to
incl
ude
perti
nent
info
rmat
ion
from
the
Lake
Tah
oe
TMD
L th
at s
uppo
rt th
is a
ppro
ach.
CSL
T R
6: W
ater
Boa
rd s
taff
has
been
eva
luat
ing
bact
eria
leve
ls
in T
alla
c C
reek
at H
ighw
ay 8
9 an
d B
aldw
in B
each
sin
ce 2
010
for
both
E. c
oli a
nd fe
cal c
olifo
rm. T
his
data
has
bee
n in
putte
d in
to
CE
DEN
. Thi
s da
ta is
ava
ilabl
e to
the
publ
ic (w
ww
.ced
en.o
rg) a
nd
will
be a
sses
sed
next
list
ing
cycl
e to
det
erm
ine
if it
is m
eetin
g th
e ba
cter
ia s
tand
ard
of th
e Ba
sin
Pla
n an
d is
no
long
er im
paire
d.
With
out n
ew d
ata
for e
valu
atio
n, th
is w
ater
bod
y ca
nnot
be
take
n of
f the
303
(d) l
ist u
ntil
suffi
cien
t dat
a is
pre
sent
ed to
sho
w th
at it
m
eets
the
bact
eria
sta
ndar
d as
per
the
List
ing
Pol
icy
requ
irem
ents
.
13-6
8
App
endi
x M
– C
omm
ents
Rec
eive
d an
d R
espo
nse
to C
omm
ents
Com
men
ts
Res
pons
es
CSL
T R
7: W
ater
Boa
rd s
taff
has
been
eva
luat
ing
bact
eria
leve
ls in
Tr
out C
reek
at H
ighw
ay 5
0 an
d at
the
conf
luen
ce w
ith th
e U
pper
Tr
ucke
e R
iver
sin
ce 2
010
for b
oth
E. c
oli a
nd fe
cal c
olifo
rm. T
his
data
has
bee
n in
putte
d in
to C
ED
EN. T
his
data
is a
vaila
ble
to th
e pu
blic
(ww
w.c
eden
.org
) and
will
be a
sses
sed
next
list
ing
cycl
e to
de
term
ine
if it
is m
eetin
g th
e ba
cter
ia s
tand
ard
of th
e B
asin
Pla
n an
d is
no
long
er im
paire
d. W
ithou
t new
dat
a fo
r eva
luat
ion,
this
w
ater
bod
y ca
nnot
be
take
n of
f the
303
(d) l
ist u
ntil
suffi
cien
t dat
a is
pr
esen
ted
to s
how
that
it m
eets
the
bact
eria
sta
ndar
d as
per
the
List
ing
Pol
icy
requ
irem
ents
.
CSL
T R
8: S
ee re
spon
se C
SLT
R7.
13-6
9
App
endi
x M
– C
omm
ents
Rec
eive
d an
d R
espo
nse
to C
omm
ents
Com
men
ts
Res
pons
es
TheCSLT
includ
ed13
pageso
fattachm
entsthat
arereferred
tointhe
first3commen
ts.The
sepagesa
reno
treflected
intherespon
sesa
sthisdo
cumen
tatio
nisinclud
edas
partof
theStaffR
eport.
13-7
0
1
Nilson, Carly@Waterboards
From: Austin, Carrie@WaterboardsSent: Monday, April 07, 2014 1:57 PMTo: Martorano, Nicholas@Waterboards; Carter, Karen@CDCR; Carter,
Katharine@Waterboards; Fitzgerald, Rebecca@Waterboards; Lim, Jeong-Hee@Waterboards; Shukry-Zeywar, Nadim@Waterboards; Nilson, Carly@Waterboards; Booth, Richard@Waterboards
Cc: Cooke, Janis@Waterboards; Morris, Patrick@Waterboards; Wood, Michelle@Waterboards; Louie, Stephen@Waterboards; Palumbo, Amanda@Waterboards; Poulson, Zane@Waterboards; Lichten, Keith@Waterboards; Looker, Richard@Waterboards; Gillespie, Stacy@Waterboards
Subject: Mercury and draft 2012 Integrated Report
Hello colleagues,
This e mail is to let you know that those of us working on the statewide mercury control program for reservoirs plan torecommend that R1 & R6 include several more reservoirs in our program than are proposed for the 2012 303(d) list. Wethink that you might want to share this information at the integrated report roundtable tomorrow, because it applies tonearly all of the other regions, too.
Importantly, placement on the 303(d) list for any reason does not automatically trigger any regulatory action, accordingto OCC. (It may trigger need for a TMDL, but then the TMDL carries out the regulatory action–the 303(d) is not itself aregulatory action.)
Accordingly, placement of a reservoir on the list for elevated fish methylmercury levels does not automatically triggerinclusion in the statewide mercury control program for reservoirs. We plan for it to be a separate action to beundertaken by each Regional Water Board.
Initially, 74 reservoirs already listed on the 2010 303(d) list are included in the statewide Reservoir Mercury ControlProgram. In the future, after State Water Board adoption of this program, when Water Board reviews result in reservoirsbeing identified as having fish with elevated methylmercury, these additional reservoirs will be included in this ReservoirMercury Control Program.
We understand that for the 2012 list, the following regions recommend the following additional mercury listings forreservoirs:
R1 recommends listing of Copco Lake (Copco 1), Iron Gate Reservoir, Tule Lake, and Ruth Lake (from Table 6)R6 recommends listing of Little Rock Reservoir (from Appendix A, new listings for mercury)R7 none – 2012 list already adopted (from Attachment Four)
Here is an example of the reservoirs in R1 & R6 that we expect to recommend in the future be added to the statewidemercury control program for reservoirs. This example is based on average fish mercury > 0.2 mg/kg, our currentdefinition of a reservoir, and a weight of evidence approach. (Note that there are lots of ongoing discussions about thestatewide fish tissue objective and the listing policy, so this is only an example.)
R1: Copco Lake, Iron Gate Reservoir, Ruth Lake, Spring Lake, and Dead LakeR6: Little Rock Reservoir, Lake Gregory, Lake Arrowhead, Silverwood Lake, Upper Twin LakeR7: none
That was the quick list. Here’s the details on R1 and R6:
13-71
2
R1: Copco Lake, Iron Gate Reservoir, Ruth Lake, Spring Lake, and Dead LakeTule Lake is not a reservoir and so would not be included in the reservoir mercury control program.Dead Lake is a former lumber mill pond in the Tolowa Dunes State Park. We recommend that it be consideredfor inclusion in the program because it is a manmade feature that we think exceeds 20 acre feet in capacity,and, even though the SWAMP Lake Study data set has only one sampling location, 13 of 16 fish samples exceed0.2 mg/kg. Per aerial photo, the lake is ~27 acres. Assuming it has a depth of at least 1 foot, it exceeds thecurrent reservoir definition of minimum 20 acre feet capacity.Spring Lake (aka Santa Rosa Creek Reservoir) is formed by a dam and has a capacity of 3550 acre feet. Werecommend that it be included in the program because it is a reservoir with capacity greater than 20 acre feetand, even though the SWAMP Lake Study data set has only one sampling location, 8 of 11 fish samples exceed0.2 mg/kg.
R6: Little Rock Reservoir, Lake Gregory, Lake Arrowhead, Silverwood Lake, Upper Twin LakeThe SWAMP Lake Study data set has only one sampling location for Gregory, Arrowhead, Silverwood, and UpperTwin.However:
o 5 of 13 samples in Lake Gregory exceed 0.2 mg/kg.o 12 of 16 samples in Lake Arrowhead exceed 0.2 mg/kg.o 15 of 16 samples in Silverwood Lake exceed 0.2 mg/kg.o 2 of 3 samples in Upper Twin Lake exceed 0.2 mg/kg.
All five of these are formed by dams with capacities between 2,000 and 78,000 acre feet, and therefore meetour definition of a reservoir.
Here’s definition of reservoir from staff report we’re currently circulating for internal review (Section 1.6.1)
For this program, reservoirs are defined as natural or artificial impoundments of at least 20 acre feet water storagecapacity that contain fish and have constructed control structures such as dams, levees, or berms to contain orotherwise manage water, and/or were excavated. Names are often misleading; many reservoirs are called lakes onlocal and U.S. Geological Survey topographic maps even though they are created by structures and excavations.
Artificial impoundments are places where water ponds behind engineered structures (e.g., dams, levees, berms) andanthropogenic landscape alterations. Some of these constructed changes were made purposefully to create artificiallakes, while others were made for other reasons like dredging or quarrying but subsequently created artificial lakes.Many artificial lakes were formed by flood control and stormwater facilities. Barriers which impound 15 acre feet orless of water are not dams according to the Porter Cologne Water Quality Control Act (California Water Code,Division 3, section 6003). Only a few California dams provide less than 20 acre feet water storage capacity (DWR2010a and 2010b).
Don’t hesitate to contact me with any questions. If you would like to discuss this further, we can set up a teleconferenceto include Stephen Louie and Michelle Wood in R5 who are much, much more knowledgeable about the reservoir fishdata than I am. Carrie
13-72
App
endi
x M
– C
omm
ents
Rec
eive
d an
d R
espo
nse
to C
omm
ents
13-7
3
App
endi
x M
– C
omm
ents
Rec
eive
d an
d R
espo
nse
to C
omm
ents
13-7
4
