The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My Public Portal AboutWY 2014 TRWQMP Final Report_ With Appendices Town of Truckee/County of Placer Final Joint Annual Monitoring Report for: Implementation of the Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan Water Year 2014 Submitted: December 2014 i Table of Contents Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................................. ES-1 ES.1 Purpose and Objectives .......................................................................................................................... ES-1 ES.2 Implementation Overview .................................................................................................................... ES-1 ES.3 Results and Discussion ........................................................................................................................... ES-2 ES.3.1 Rapid Assessment Methodology ............................................................................................ ES-2 ES.3.2 Bioassessment ............................................................................................................................... ES-2 ES.3.3 Community Level Water Quality Monitoring ................................................................... ES-3 ES.3.4 Tributary Level Water Quality Monitoring........................................................................ ES-4 ES.3.5 Discharge Monitoring ................................................................................................................. ES-4 ES.3.6 Near-Continuous Turbidity Monitoring .............................................................................. ES-4 ES.3.7 Water Quality Areas of Concern ............................................................................................. ES-5 ES.3.8 Effectiveness of MS4 Permit Activities ................................................................................ ES-6 ES.3.9 Prioritization of Existing TRWQMP Elements .................................................................. ES-7 Section 1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 1-1 Section 2 TRWQMP Summary ............................................................................................................................ 2-1 2.1 Purpose .............................................................................................................................................................. 2-1 2.2 Goals and Objectives ..................................................................................................................................... 2-1 Section 3 Summary of the Water Year 2014 Monitoring Period ........................................................... 3-1 3.1 Precipitation Summary ............................................................................................................................... 3-1 3.2 Stream Discharge Summary ...................................................................................................................... 3-7 3.3 Land Use Conditions ................................................................................................................................... 3-11 3.4 Regulatory Requirements ........................................................................................................................ 3-12 Section 4 Data Collection and Analysis Methodologies ............................................................................ 4-1 4.1 Rapid Assessment Methodology ............................................................................................................. 4-2 4.1.1 Monitoring Locations ...................................................................................................................... 4-2 4.1.2 Field Evaluation Protocols ............................................................................................................ 4-6 4.1.3 Data Management and Analysis .................................................................................................. 4-6 4.2 Bioassessment Monitoring ........................................................................................................................ 4-8 4.2.1 Monitoring Locations ...................................................................................................................... 4-8 4.2.2 Field Evaluation Protocols .......................................................................................................... 4-11 4.2.3 Data Analysis and Validation ..................................................................................................... 4-11 4.3 Community Level Water Quality Monitoring ................................................................................... 4-12 4.3.1 Monitoring Site Descriptions ..................................................................................................... 4-12 4.3.2 Field Evaluation Protocols .......................................................................................................... 4-15 4.3.3 Data Management and Analysis ................................................................................................ 4-15 4.4 Tributary Level Water Quality Sampling ........................................................................................... 4-16 4.4.1 Monitoring Site Descriptions ..................................................................................................... 4-16 4.4.2 Field Evaluation Protocols .......................................................................................................... 4-20 Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan Table of Contents Water Year 2014 Annual Monitoring Report ii 4.4.3 Data Management and Analysis ............................................................................................... 4-20 4.5 Martis Valley Discharge Monitoring ................................................................................................... 4-21 4.5.1 Monitoring Site Description ....................................................................................................... 4-21 4.5.2 Installation and Operation.......................................................................................................... 4-21 4.5.3 Development of Stage to Discharge Rating Curves .......................................................... 4-23 4.5.4 Data Management and Analysis ............................................................................................... 4-23 4.6 Near-Continuous Turbidity Monitoring ............................................................................................ 4-23 4.6.1 Monitoring Site Description ....................................................................................................... 4-24 4.6.2 Installation and Operation.......................................................................................................... 4-26 4.6.3 Fluvial Sediment Measurements ............................................................................................. 4-26 4.6.4 Data Management and Analysis ............................................................................................... 4-27 4.7 Donner Creek Outfall Modeling ............................................................................................................ 4-28 4.8 Data Quality Objectives ............................................................................................................................ 4-29 4.9 Statistical Analyses ..................................................................................................................................... 4-30 4.9.1 Normality Tests ............................................................................................................................... 4-30 4.9.2 t-Tests .................................................................................................................................................. 4-30 4.9.3 Power Analysis ................................................................................................................................ 4-31 4.9.4 Trend Analysis ................................................................................................................................. 4-31 4.10 Monitoring Modifications ..................................................................................................................... 4-31 Section 5 Water Year 2014 Monitoring Results .......................................................................................... 5-1 5.1 Rapid Assessment Methodology .............................................................................................................. 5-1 5.2 Bioassessments ............................................................................................................................................ 5-10 5.2.1 Bioassessment Results ................................................................................................................. 5-10 5.2.3 Bioassessment Laboratory Results ......................................................................................... 5-14 5.3 Community Level Water Quality Monitoring .................................................................................. 5-19 5.3.1 Monitored Events ........................................................................................................................... 5-19 5.3.2 Water Quality Results ................................................................................................................... 5-20 5.3.3 Statistical Analyses ........................................................................................................................ 5-23 5.3.4 Community Level Discussion .................................................................................................... 5-25 5.3.5 QA/QC Results ................................................................................................................................. 5-26 5.4 Tributary Level Discrete Water Quality Monitoring .................................................................... 5-27 5.4.1 Monitored Events ........................................................................................................................... 5-27 5.4.2 Water Quality Results ................................................................................................................... 5-33 5.4.3 Statistical Analyses ........................................................................................................................ 5-35 5.4.4 Tributary Level Discussion ........................................................................................................ 5-40 5.4.5 QA/QC Results ................................................................................................................................. 5-47 5.5 Stream Gaging Stations: WY 2014 Hydrologic Summary .......................................................... 5-47 5.5.1 Martis Creek: Site GS-MC2 .......................................................................................................... 5-47 5.5.2 West Martis Creek: Site TURB-MC1 ........................................................................................ 5-48 5.5.3 Upper Martis Creek: Site TURB-MC2 Discharge ................................................................ 5-49 5.5.4 Truckee River above Truckee (USGS 10338000) Discharge ....................................... 5-49 5.5.5 Truckee River at Boca Bridge (USGS 10344505) ............................................................. 5-50 5.6 Load Estimates ............................................................................................................................................. 5-56 5.6.1 Suspended Sediment Load Methods ...................................................................................... 5-56 5.6.2 Suspended-Sediment TMDL Comparison ............................................................................ 5-78 5.6.3 Additional Martis Creek Watershed Loads ......................................................................... 5-83 Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan Water Year 2014 Annual Monitoring Report Table of Contents iii 5.7 Donner Creek Outfall Modeling ............................................................................................................. 5-85 Section 6 Discussion .............................................................................................................................................. 6-1 6.1 Integration of the Assessment Data ....................................................................................................... 6-1 6.1.1 Squaw Creek ........................................................................................................................................ 6-1 6.1.2 Bear Creek ............................................................................................................................................ 6-5 6.1.3 Martis Creek ........................................................................................................................................ 6-5 6.1.4 Donner Creek ...................................................................................................................................... 6-6 6.1.5 Town of Truckee Corridor ............................................................................................................. 6-6 6.2 Suspended-Sediment Data Integration .............................................................................................. 6-11 6.2.1 Comparison to Truckee River at Farad .................................................................................. 6-11 6.2.2 Comparison to Middle Truckee River Tributaries ............................................................ 6-13 6.2.3 Turbidity Based Comparison to Previous Years ................................................................ 6-18 6.2.4 Comparison of Discharge-Based Sediment Rating Curves to Previous Years....... 6-20 6.3 Water Quality Areas of Concern ............................................................................................................ 6-22 6.4 Effectiveness of MS4 Permit Activities ............................................................................................... 6-23 6.5 Prioritization of Existing TRWQMP Elements ................................................................................. 6-24 Section 7 Fiscal Summary .................................................................................................................................... 7-1 Section 8 Conclusions and Recommendations ............................................................................................ 8-1 8.1 Rapid Assessment Methodology ............................................................................................................. 8-1 8.2 Bioassessment ................................................................................................................................................. 8-2 8.3 Community Level Discrete Monitoring ................................................................................................ 8-3 8.4 Tributary Level Water Quality Monitoring ......................................................................................... 8-4 8.5 Stream Gages ................................................................................................................................................... 8-5 8.6 Suspended Sediment Load Estimates ................................................................................................... 8-6 8.7 Donner Creek Outfall Modeling ............................................................................................................... 8-8 Section 9 References ............................................................................................................................................. 9-1 Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan Table of Contents Water Year 2014 Annual Monitoring Report iv List of Tables Table 3-1. Css Lab Precipitation Totals for Water Years 2010-2014 Water Years 1 ................ 3-3 Table 3-2. Truckee Precipitation Totals for Water Years 2010-2014 1.......................................... 3-4 Table 3-3. Css Lab Snow Water Equivalent for Water Years 2010-2014 1 ................................... 3-5 Table 3-4. Truckee Snow Water Equivalent for Water Years 2010-2014 1 .................................. 3-6 Table 3-5. Summary of TRWQMP Sub-Watersheds with High and Moderate Disturbance Ratings 1 .................................................................................................................. 3-12 Table 4-1. WY 2014 TRWQMP Monitoring Summary .......................................................................... 4-1 Table 4-2. Summary of RAM Intervals Surveyed in WY 2014 ........................................................... 4-3 Table 4-3. Bioassessment Locations ............................................................................................................ 4-8 Table 4-4. Discrete Monitoring Site Characteristics ........................................................................... 4-13 Table 4-5. Analytical List for Community Level Water Quality Samples ................................... 4-16 Table 4-6. Tributary Level Discrete Monitoring Site Characteristics.......................................... 4-17 Table 4-7. Analytical List for Tributary Level Water Quality Samples ....................................... 4-20 Table 4-8. Control Limits for Precision and Accuracy for Water Samples ................................ 4-29 Table 5.1. Rapid Assessment Methodology Temporal Comparisons of Fine Particles (< 2mm diameter) .......................................................................................................................... 5-3 Table 5-2. Summary of 2014 TRWQMP Bioassessment Results (Squaw Creek and Martis Creek sites) ....................................................................................................................... 5-15 Table 5-3. Taxa Listings for 500-Fixed-Count Samples from 2014 Squaw Creek and Martis Creek Bioassessments (Riffle Composite Samples) ........................................ 5-16 Table 5-4. WY 2014 Community Level Water Quality Monitoring Event Summary ............. 5-20 Table 5-5. Northstar Drive Community Level Summary Statistics (Site DSC-MC4) ............. 5-23 Table 5-6. Aspen Grove Community Level Summary Statistics (Site DSC-MC5) .................... 5-24 Table 5-7. Statistical Analysis - Community Level Monitoring 1 .................................................... 5-25 Table 5-8. Tahoe TMDL Event Mean Concentrations ........................................................................ 5-25 Table 5-9. 2011 -2014 Water Years Tributary Level Water Quality Monitoring Event Summary 1 ........................................................................................................................................ 5-28 Table 5-10. WY 2011 – WY 2014 Martis Creek Tributary Summary Statistics (DST- MC1) .................................................................................................................................................. 5-36 Table 5-11. WY 2011 – WY 2014 Martis Creek Tributary Summary Statistics (DST- MC2) .................................................................................................................................................. 5-36 Table 5-12. WY 2011 – WY 2014 Martis Creek Tributary Summary Statistics (DST- MC3) .................................................................................................................................................. 5-37 Table 5-13. WY 2011 – WY 2014 Martis Creek Tributary Summary Statistics (DST- MC4) .................................................................................................................................................. 5-37 Table 5-14. WY 2011 – WY 2014 Martis Creek Tributary Summary Statistics (DST- MC5) .................................................................................................................................................. 5-38 Table 5-15. WY 2011 – WY 2014 Martis Creek Tributary Summary Statistics (DST- MC6) .................................................................................................................................................. 5-38 Table 5-16. Statistical Trends of Constituents of Concern at Tributary Monitoring Sites .................................................................................................................................................... 5-39 Table 5-17. Tributary Level Site Rankings Based on Mean Pollutant Concentrations (WY 2011 – WY 2014) ............................................................................................................... 5-40 Table 5-18. Martis Creek Tributary Annual Discharge Estimates ................................................ 5-84 Table 5-19. WY 2014 Martis Creek Tributary Load Estimates ...................................................... 5-85 Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan Water Year 2014 Annual Monitoring Report Table of Contents v Table 5-20. Donner Creek Water Quality Modeling Catchment Land Use Summary (Acres) ...............................................................................................................................................5-86 Table 5-21. Donner Creek Outfall Modeling Results 1 .........................................................................5-88 Table 6-1. Thresholds for interpreting Eastern Sierra IBI scores (from Herbst and Silldorff [2009]). .............................................................................................................................. 6-2 Table 6-2. Comparison of Suspended-Sediment Loads and Yields from Previous Years, Truckee River above Truckee (TURB-MS1) ........................................................6-19 Table 7-1. Year 1 through 5 Implementation Costs .............................................................................. 7-1 Table 8-1. Statistical Differences among Tributary Level Discrete Sampling Data ................. 8-5 Table 8-2. TRWQMP WY 2013 Key Discharge Parameters ................................................................ 8-6 List of Figures Figure 1-1a Martis Creek Main Stem February 2014 ............................................................................ 1-3 Figure 1-1b Martis Creek Main Stem October 2014 ............................................................................... 1-3 Figure 3-1 Daily Precipitation at Css Lab (USDA, 2014) ...................................................................... 3-2 Figure 3-2 Daily Precipitation in Truckee, CA (USDA, 2014) ............................................................. 3-2 Figure 3-3 Middle Truckee River Watershed ............................................................................................ 3-8 Figure 3-4 Truckee River Discharge at Tahoe City (USGS, 2014) .................................................... 3-9 Figure 3-5 Truckee River Discharge near Truckee (USGS, 2014) .................................................... 3-9 Figure 3-6 Donner Creek Discharge at Highway 89 (USGS, 2014) ................................................3-10 Figure 3-7 Truckee River at Boca Bridge (USGS, 2014) .....................................................................3-10 Figure 4-1 Rapid Assessment Methodology Bear and Squaw Creek Site Vicinity Map........... 4-4 Figure 4-2 Rapid Assessment Methodology Martis Valley Site Vicinity Map .............................. 4-5 Figure 4-3 Typical RAM Reach Showing Transect Points .................................................................... 4-7 Figure 4-4 Squaw Creek Bioassessment Monitoring Locations ........................................................ 4-9 Figure 4-5 Martis Valley Bioassessment Monitoring Locations ......................................................4-10 Figure 4-6 Discrete Community Water Quality Sampling Placer County Monitoring Locations ..........................................................................................................................................4-14 Figure 4-7 Discrete Tributary Water Quality Sampling, Stream Gaging, and Near- Continuous Turbidity Monitoring Locations ....................................................................4-18 Figure 4-8 Tributary Level Discrete Monitoring Sites ........................................................................4-19 Figure 4-9 Staff Gages at the Martis Valley Gaging Stations .............................................................4-22 Figure 4-10 Near-Continuous Turbidity Monitoring Locations ......................................................4-25 Figure 5-1 Summary of Squaw Creek and Bear Creek RAM Results ............................................... 5-2 Figure 5-2 Summary of Martis Creek RAM Results ................................................................................ 5-2 Figure 5-3 RAM Results Comparison ............................................................................................................ 5-3 Figure 5-5 Squaw Creek RAM Results .......................................................................................................... 5-6 Figure 5-6 Bear Creek RAM Results .............................................................................................................. 5-7 Figure 5-7 Martis and West Martis Creek RAM Results ....................................................................... 5-8 Figure 5-8 East Martis Creek RAM Results ................................................................................................ 5-9 Figure 5-9 Squaw Creek Bioassessment Photos ....................................................................................5-11 Figure 5-10 Martis Creek Bioassessment Photos ..................................................................................5-13 Figure 5-11 Site Comparisons – TSS ...........................................................................................................5-21 Figure 5-12 Site Comparisons – Turbidity ...............................................................................................5-21 Figure 5-13 Site Comparisons – Total Nitrogen .....................................................................................5-22 Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan Table of Contents Water Year 2014 Annual Monitoring Report vi Figure 5-14 Site Comparisons – Total Phosphorus.............................................................................. 5-22 Figure 5-15 Northstar Drive site .................................................................................................................. 5-26 Figure 5-16 Aspen Grove Site ........................................................................................................................ 5-26 Figure 5-17 Tributary Event 1/30/14....................................................................................................... 5-29 Figure 5-18 Tributary Event 2/9/14 ......................................................................................................... 5-29 Figure 5-19 Tributary Event 2/27/14....................................................................................................... 5-30 Figure 5-20 Tributary Event 3/29/14....................................................................................................... 5-30 Figure 5-21 Tributary Event 4/8/14 ......................................................................................................... 5-31 Figure 5-22 Tributary Event 5/20/14....................................................................................................... 5-31 Figure 5-23 Tributary Event 7/21/14....................................................................................................... 5-32 Figure 5-24 Tributary Event 8/4/14 ......................................................................................................... 5-32 Figure 5-25 Tributary Site Comparisons – TSS ..................................................................................... 5-33 Figure 5-26 Tributary Site Comparisons – Turbidity ......................................................................... 5-34 Figure 5-27 Tributary Site Comparisons – Total Nitrogen ............................................................... 5-34 Figure 5-28 Tributary Site Comparisons – Total Phosphorus ........................................................ 5-35 Figure 5-29 Site DST-MC1 Looking downstream toward Martis Creek Lake ........................... 5-41 Figure 5-30 Site DST-MC2 Looking Upstream toward Undeveloped Meadow and Forest ................................................................................................................................................ 5-42 Figure 5-31 Middle Martis Creek Bypass ................................................................................................. 5-43 Figure 5-32 Site DST-MC4 Looking Upstream Towards Northstar Golf Course ..................... 5-44 Figure 5-33 Site DST-MC5 on February 9, 2014 ................................................................................... 5-45 Figure 5-34 Low Flow Event at Site DST-MC6 ....................................................................................... 5-46 Figure 5-35 Daily Mean and Maximum Stage Hydrograph Martis Creek, Site GS-MC2, WY 2014........................................................................................................................................... 5-51 Figure 5-36 Daily Mean and Maximum Discharge Hydrograph West Martis Creek, Site TURB-MC1, WY 2014 ......................................................................................................... 5-52 Figure 5-37 Daily Mean and Maximum Discharge Hydrograph Martis Creek, Site TURB-MC2, WY 2014 ................................................................................................................. 5-53 Figure 5-38 Daily Mean and Maximum Discharge Hydrograph Truckee River above Truckee (USGS 10338000), WY 2014. ................................................................................ 5-54 Figure 5-39 Daily Mean Discharge Hydrograph Truckee River at Boca Bridge (USGS 10344505), WY 2014. ................................................................................................................ 5-55 Figure 5-40 Near-continuous record of turbidity, West Martis Creek (TURB-MC1), WY 2014........................................................................................................................................... 5-58 Figure 5-41 Relationship between turbidity and suspended-sediment concentration, West Martis Creek (TURB-MC1), WY 2014. ..................................................................... 5-59 Figure 5-42 Relationship between discharge and suspended-sediment load, West Martis Creek (TURB-MC1), WY 2014. ................................................................................. 5-60 Figure 5-43 Daily suspended-sediment load, comparison between turbidity-based and discharge-based methods, West Martis Creek (TURB-MC1), WY 2014. .... 5-61 Figure 5-44 Near-continuous record of turbidity, Martis Creek, TURB-MC2, WY 2014. ..... 5-63 Figure 5-45 Relationship between turbidity and suspended-sediment concentration, Martis Creek, TURB-MC2, WY 2014. .................................................................................... 5-64 Figure 5-46 Relationship between discharge and suspended-sediment load, Martis Creek, WY 2014. ........................................................................................................................... 5-65 Figure 5-47 Daily suspended-sediment load, turbidity-based method, Martis Creek (TURB-MC2), WY 2014. ............................................................................................................. 5-66 Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan Water Year 2014 Annual Monitoring Report Table of Contents vii Figure 5-48 Near-continuous record of turbidity, Truckee River above Truckee, WY 2014....................................................................................................................................................5-68 Figure 5-49 Relationship between turbidity and suspended-sediment concentration, Truckee River above Truckee (TURB-MS3), WY 2014. ................................................5-69 Figure 5-50 Relationship between discharge and suspended-sediment load, Truckee River above Truckee (USGS 10338000), WY 2002-2003 and WY 2013- 2014....................................................................................................................................................5-70 Figure 5-51 Daily suspended-sediment load, comparison between turbidity-based and discharge-based methods, Truckee River above Truckee (TURB-MS3), WY 2014. ..........................................................................................................................................5-71 Figure 5-52 Near-continuous record of turbidity, Truckee River at Boca Bridge (TURB-TT1), WY 2014. ..............................................................................................................5-74 Figure 5-53 Relationship between turbidity and suspended-sediment concentration, Truckee River at Boca Bridge (TURB-TT1), WYs 2013-2014. ..................................5-75 Figure 5-54 Relationship between discharge and suspended-sediment load, Truckee River at Boca Bridge (TURB-TT1), WYs 2013-2014......................................................5-76 Figure 5-55 Daily suspended-sediment load, comparison between turbidity-based and discharge-based methods, Truckee River at Boca Bridge (TURB-TT1), WY 2014. ..........................................................................................................................................5-77 Figure 5-56 Suspended-sediment load duration curve, Truckee River above Truckee (USGS 10338000), Placer County, California, WY 2014. .............................................5-80 Figure 5-57 Suspended-sediment load duration curve, Truckee River at Boca Bridge (TURB-TT1), Nevada County, California, WY 2014. ......................................................5-81 Figure 5-58 Suspended-sediment load duration curve, Truckee River at Farad (USGS 10346000), Placer County, California, WY 2014. ..........................................................5-82 Figure 5-59 Martis Creek Tributary Monitoring Sites and Sub-Watersheds ............................5-84 Figure 5-60 Donner Creek Outfall Modeling Results ...........................................................................5-89 Figure 6-1 Squaw Creek Bioassessment Median Particle Size (D50) ............................................. 6-3 Figure 6-2 Squaw Creek Bioassessment Percent Fines and Sand .................................................... 6-3 Figure 6-3 Squaw Creek Bioassessment Biological Condition Score (BCS) ................................. 6-4 Figure 6-4 Squaw Creek and Martis Creek Eastern Sierra IBI Scores ............................................ 6-4 Figure 6-5 Comparison of daily suspended-sediment loads, Truckee River, above and below Town of Truckee, California, water year 2014. .................................................... 6-8 Figure 6-6 Discrete Community Level Water Quality Monitoring TSS Comparison ............... 6-9 Figure 6-7 Discrete Community Level Water Quality Monitoring Turbidity Comparison ....................................................................................................................................... 6-9 Figure 6-8 Discrete Community Level Water Quality Monitoring Total Nitrogen Comparison .....................................................................................................................................6-10 Figure 6-9 Discrete Community Level Water Quality Monitoring Total Phosphorus Comparison .....................................................................................................................................6-10 Figure 6-10 Daily suspended-sediment load based on a continuous record of turbidity, Middle Truckee River at three stations, Placer and Nevada Counties, California water year 2014. .................................................................................6-12 Figure 6-11 Suspended-sediment load, Truckee River at Boca Bridge, near Truckee California, water years 2013 and 2014. ..............................................................................6-15 Figure 6-12 Total annual suspended-sediment yields, Middle Truckee River and Tributaries, Truckee, California, water year 2014. ........................................................6-16 Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan Table of Contents Water Year 2014 Annual Monitoring Report viii Figure 6-13 ‘Nested’ Total Annual Suspended-Sediment Yields, Donner/Cold Creek, Truckee, California, Water Year 2014. ................................................................................ 6-17 Figure 6-14 Relationship between discharge and suspended-sediment load, Truckee River above Truckee, California, water years 2002-2003, and water years 2013-2014 ...................................................................................................................................... 6-21 ES-1 Executive Summary This report presents the results of implementing the fifth year of the Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan (TRWQMP) which took place during the 2014 water year (October 1, 2013 – September 30, 2014). The report is a joint effort between Placer County (County) and the Town of Truckee (Town) and presents the results of both entities’ monitoring activities. Purpose and Objectives As a Small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4), the County and Town must comply with the State’s general National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Phase 2 permit (Permit) for stormwater discharges. The 2003 Permit (Order No. 2003-0005-DWQ) required the County and Town to develop Storm Water Management Plans (SWMPs) that included a comprehensive water quality monitoring plan for the Middle Truckee River Watershed. In response to this and other regulatory requirements, the County and Town collaboratively developed the TRWQMP. The overall purpose of the TRWQMP is to assess the effectiveness of various Permit related actions implemented by the County and Town to protect natural surface waters from the impacts of stormwater runoff. The goals of the TRWQMP are as follows: · TRWQMP Goal 1: Ensure regulatory compliance with the NPDES permit, Lahontan Board Orders, Middle Truckee River Sediment TMDL, Squaw Creek sediment TMDL, and the Martis Valley Community Plan. · TRWQMP Goal 2: Develop water quality monitoring datasets that will be scientifically defensible and provide accurate data to evaluate the effectiveness of Stormwater Management Programs in protecting surface water resources. · TRWQMP Goal 3: Develop a monitoring plan that is economically feasible to implement and maintain over time. · TRWQMP Goal 4: Ensure that the TRWQMP allows collaboration, effort-sharing and integration of multiple independent private and public monitoring efforts. Implementation Overview Implementation of Phase 1 of the TRWQMP began during the 2010 water year (October 1, 2009 through September 30, 2010) and has been continuous through the 2014 water year. Information regarding the monitoring plan and protocols are found in the TRWQMP and the Sampling and Analysis Plans (SAPs) that were prepared for the County and Town throughout TRWQMP implementation. The 2014 water year (WY 2014) was well below average in terms of precipitation and snowpack as compared to historical records. Precipitation was above average only for the month of February and water year totals were around 60 percent of normal. Very little snow fell during WY 2014 with maximum snow water equivalents (SWE) at 33 percent of average. There were no major fires, landslides, floods or other events during this period, and the spring runoff was considerably less than normal due to the small amounts of snowfall during the winter. Data collected during the 2014 Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan Executive Summary Water Year 2014 Annual Monitoring Report ES-2 monitoring period are representative of baseline conditions during a period of drought. These data improve the baseline dataset which will be used to evaluate future changes in the watershed. Year 5 TRWQMP implementation activities are the primary focus of this report. These included a set of select monitoring activities in the Martis Creek and Truckee River (Town corridor) sub-watersheds that included: · Rapid Assessment Methodology (RAM) to characterize the amount of fine substrate on streambeds, · Bioassessments to evaluate the benthic macroinvertebrate community and physical habitat conditions Squaw and Martis Creeks, · Community level water quality sampling to characterize the quality of stormwater runoff from communities with varying land uses and characteristics, · Tributary level water quality sampling to characterize the water quality of the tributaries within the Martis Creek sub-watershed, · Stream discharge monitoring to characterize annual discharge patterns and volumes for the Truckee River and Martis Creek, and · Near-continuous turbidity monitoring to develop annual suspended-sediment load estimates for the Truckee River and each monitored branch of Martis Creek, and · Donner Creek outfall modeling to determine relative suspended-sediment loads from major stormwater outfalls to Donner Creek and prioritize areas for future improvement. Additional data, collected by the Truckee River Watershed Council (TRWC) and California Department of Water Resources (DWR), are also analyzed and presented in this report. The integration of this information is a result of a coordinated monitoring effort to identify and characterize the suspended- sediment sources and trends within the Middle Truckee River and its tributaries. Results and Discussion Rapid Assessment Methodology The purpose of the RAM monitoring is to characterize the accumulation and distribution patterns of fine sediment (<2mm diameter) on the bottoms of surveyed channels. A long-term dataset will allow tracking of the overall change in fine sediment distribution and identify specific areas of concern. RAM monitoring is conducted on a biannual basis; it was conducted during WY 2010, WY 2012 and WY 2014. The third year of RAM monitoring included portions of Squaw, Martis, and Bear Creeks for Placer County. The results indicate that Martis Creek has the least amount fine sediment (6 percent on average) on the channel bottom while West Martis Creek had the most (23 percent on average). The fine sediment substrate in Bear Creek and Squaw Creek were similar at approximately 10 percent on average, and East Martis Creek consisted of 15 percent fine sediment on average during WY 2014.. Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan Water Year 2014 Annual Monitoring Report Executive Summary ES-3 Bioassessment Bioassessments provide an overall indication of stream health by evaluating the benthic macroinvertebrate community and physical habitat conditions present in a given stream reach. A long-term dataset will allow tracking to determine whether these conditions are improving or declining with time. Similar to the RAM, bioassessments are performed biannually and have occurred during the 2010, 2012 and 2014 water years. Bioassessments were performed at Squaw Creek and Martis Creek in the summer of 2014 following slightly different protocols. Squaw Creek sampling followed the specific bioassessment protocol developed in conjunction with the Squaw Creek sediment TMDL, while Martis Creek sampling followed the statewide standard bioassessment protocol. For Squaw Creek, the numerical target for biological health (representing desired stream integrity protective of aquatic life uses) is a Biological Condition Score (BCS) value of 25 or more. Water year 2014 values for Squaw Creek were far short of this target with BCS values of 13, 19, and 13 for upper, middle, and lower meadow sites, respectively. The mean BCS value for all survey years is 15.3 (range 7 to 27). Historically, BCS values have only met or exceeded the target value of 25 during one survey year (two of the three sites in 2012). Particles less than 3 mm diameter (%fines+sand), along with D50, are the two physical habitat parameters identified as important indicators of habitat suitability for aquatic life in the context of the Squaw Creek sediment TMDL. The numerical target for D50 is an increasing trend approaching 40 mm or greater, while the target for %fines+sand is a decreasing trend approaching 25 percent or less in the Squaw Creek meadow reach. Both of these parameters were far short of target values in 2014; historical values are also well below TMDL targets. As in previous survey years, 2014 bioassessment results for Martis Creek indicate that the upper tributaries with less disturbance had the highest IBI scores with values of 98.0 and 86.2 out of 100 at the Schaeffer and Upper West Martis Sites, respectively. Both scores are considered Tier 5 (or Grade ”A”) indicative of conditions supporting regional water-quality objectives. These two survey locations also had a low percentage of fine sediment on the streambed. The lower West Branch and lower mainstem sites had IBI scores of 76.8 and 75.2, respectively, which are considered Tier 3 (or Grade “C”), indicative of conditions partially supporting water-quality objectives. These results illustrate declining conditions in West Martis Creek as the stream flows through the Northstar residential area and golf course. The poorest scoring sites on Martis Creek were middle mainstem and East Branch sites which had IBI scores of 57.9 and 56.3, respectively. These two sites are considered Tier 2 (or Grade “D”), indicative of conditions not supporting water-quality objectives for the region. Only the middle mainstem site) in Martis Creek showed a substantial decline relative to previous survey years. Community Level Water Quality Monitoring During WY 2014, Placer County collected data from two community level water quality monitoring sites. These two sites, identified as Northstar Drive and Aspen Grove, are located within the Northstar development and discharge to West Martis Creek. WY 2014 was the first year of data collection at these sites. The drainage areas contributing stormwater runoff include multi-family condominiums, paved roadways, parking lots and minor forested areas. A system of storm drain pipes, drainage inlets and sediment traps convey runoff from the upper watershed to the Northstar Drive site. This runoff then travels through an open vegetated channel that meanders through a riparian area within the Aspen Grove property and eventually discharges to the Aspen Grove site and West Martis Creek. Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan Executive Summary Water Year 2014 Annual Monitoring Report ES-4 Statistical analyses were conducted for the new sites; however, the data is very limited (8 data points per site) and any conclusions are considered preliminary. Statistical analyses indicate that the vegetated channel that connects these two sites is effectively reducing pollutant concentrations before runoff is discharged to West Martis Creek. Tributary Level Water Quality Monitoring The results of four years of tributary level water quality monitoring at the six Martis Creek sites are amassing information regarding the types of pollutants and their relative concentrations and loads at the various locations. The data indicate that pollutant concentrations within Martis Creek and its tributaries are below the water quality objectives defined for total nitrogen and TKN within Martis Creek at its mouth. All sites had mean total phosphorus concentrations that were above the water quality objective for Martis Creek. This includes East Martis Creek which has a relatively undeveloped watershed, indicating that the phosphorus source may be natural rather than a result of fertilizers use on golf courses and landscaping. The largest pollutant yields in the Martis Creek watershed were observed in West Martis Creek and the upper main stem of Martis Creek (above all major confluences). These are the most developed Martis Creek sub-watersheds, and additional measures should be considered to help reduce pollutant loading. Discharge Monitoring Discharge monitoring in WY 2014 was conducted at three locations within the Martis Creek watershed (upper Martis Creek, lower Martis creek, and West Martis Creek). At each location, a near- continuous record (15-minute) of discharge was developed and used for evaluation of annual peak flows, annual mean flow, daily streamflow and total flow volume. In combination with near- continuous turbidity monitoring, these metrics were used to compute a near-continuous record of suspended-sediment loading. The lower Martis Creek gage, which is located just upstream of Martis Creek Reservoir, has been in operation for one year, and had a total annual discharge of approximately 3,900 acre-feet for WY 2014. The upper Martis Creek and West Martis Creek gages have been in operation for two years, and had total annual discharges of 2,296 and 637 acre-feet during WY 2014, respectively. Near-Continuous Turbidity Monitoring During WY 2014, four near-continuous turbidity stations were operated in the project area; one in the Truckee River upstream of Truckee, one in the Truckee River downstream of Truckee at the Boca Reservoir Bridge, one in West Martis Creek and one in the upper main stem of Martis Creek below the Northstar and Lahontan developments. Based on the first two years of continuous-turbidity monitoring, the importance of high-intensity, short-duration, runoff events on suspended-sediment loading is evident. Rain-on-snow events or short-lived summer thunderstorms can generate loads an order of magnitude, or more, than loads generated by long-duration events such as spring snowmelt runoff. The WY 2014 annual suspended-sediment loading in the Truckee River above Truckee was approximately 457 tons and increased to 1,625 tons downstream in the Truckee River at Boca Bridge. Approximately 59 percent (959 tons) of this suspended-sediment load originated from tributaries including Martis Creek, Prosser Creek, and the Little Truckee River, in-channel bed and bank erosion, and stormwater outfalls within the Town of Truckee Corridor. Approximately 12 percent (195 tons) of Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan Water Year 2014 Annual Monitoring Report Executive Summary ES-5 the suspended-sediment load in the Truckee River at Boca Bridge originated from Donner Creek, and only 1 percent (16 tons) of the total suspended-sediment load originated from Trout Creek. Suspended-sediment loads in the Truckee River upstream and downstream of Truckee were compared against TMDL limits established for the Middle Truckee River, in which Farad is considered to be the point of compliance. Loads for partial WY 2013 and WY 2014 suggest the near-continuous turbidity stations met the TMDL standard for suspended-sediment, while loads computed for the two water years at Farad also met the TMDL standard. It should be noted that WY 2013 and WY 2014 were dry years, and data from other year types (i.e., wet, average) are needed to assess the variability across year types. Near-continuous turbidity monitoring also enabled the estimation of suspended-sediment loads and yields for the two most developed tributaries in the Martis Creek watershed. The suspended-sediment loads for WY 2014 were approximately 9.2 tons (5.8 lb/ac) in West Martis Creek and 21 tons (4.8 lb/ac) in the upper main stem of Martis Creek. The higher yields in West Martis Creek support the conclusions from the other monitoring types discussed above. The suspended-sediment loads from these streams are minimal compared to the suspended-sediment loads measured in the Truckee River. Water Quality Areas of Concern After four years of monitoring, the following areas were identified as areas of the highest concern for water quality: Truckee River (Town Corridor): Suspended-sediment results indicate between 30 percent and 60 percent of the total suspended-sediment load being carried by the Truckee River at the Boca Bridge originates from watershed areas draining the Town of Truckee corridor. In addition to the Truckee downtown areas, this very large watershed includes Martis Creek, Glenshire Creek, Prosser Creek, and the Little Truckee River; all of which are dammed tributaries that may also contribute to suspended-sediment loads. Previous RAM results from the Truckee River main stem do not indicate high percentages of fine substrate despite a very high percentage in Trout Creek. Previous community level sampling indicates elevated TSS concentrations in stormwater runoff discharging into the Truckee River from the downtown area. Based on the data collected to date, the integrated results indicate significant amounts of sediment are discharged to the Truckee River from urban areas, and then transported downstream to slower moving areas where deposition occurs. Donner Creek: Suspended-sediment measurements indicate that Donner Creek had the highest suspended-sediment yield (tons/sq. mile), when compared to other Truckee River tributaries monitored in WY 2014. The area within the Town of Truckee that drains to Donner Creek is small, but also urbanized, and includes high traffic roadways such as Highway 89 and Interstate 80. Impervious surfaces drain to Donner Creek through a large network of storm drains that transport particulates materials that are measured as suspended-sediment in Donner Creek. Both the Donner Creek stormwater outfall modeling as well as suspended sediment monitoring carried out by Balance Hydrologics for the Truckee River Watershed Council identified highly impervious sub-watersheds, such as Hwy 89, West River Street, and the Deerfield development, as the primary contributors of suspended-sediment into Donner Creek. Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan Executive Summary Water Year 2014 Annual Monitoring Report ES-6 Martis Creek: Martis Creek is separated from the Truckee River by a dam which allows much of the sediment and sediment associated pollutants to be removed prior to discharging to the Truckee River. Pollutant loads into Martis Creek Reservoir are elevated and the stream does not meet its water quality objective for total phosphorus. This is likely a combined effect of development related issues in the watershed including roadway shoulder erosion near creek crossings, ski run soil disturbance, commercial and residential construction, roadway abrasives and more. Although the dam in Martis Creek Reservoir likely decreases pollutant loading to the Truckee River, it could represent problems to the reservoir in terms of decreased storage capacity and excessive growth of aquatic plants. Also, if the Martis Dam were removed (i.e. due to the ongoing concerns of safety) a clear increase in pollutant loading to the Truckee River would likely occur. As in previous survey years, 2014 bioassessment results for Martis Creek indicate that the upper tributaries with less disturbance had the highest IBI scores with values of 98.0 and 86.2 out of 100 at the Schaeffer and Upper West Martis Sites, respectively. Both scores are considered Tier 5 (or Grade ”A”) indicative of conditions supporting regional water-quality objectives. The lower West Branch and lower mainstem sites had IBI scores of 76.8 and 75.2, respectively, which are considered Tier 3 (or Grade “C”), indicative of conditions partially supporting water-quality objectives. These results illustrate declining conditions in West Martis Creek as the stream flows through the Northstar residential area and golf course. The poorest scoring sites on Martis Creek were middle mainstem and East Branch sites which had IBI scores of 57.9 and 56.3, respectively. These two sites are considered Tier 2 (or Grade “D”), indicative of conditions not supporting water-quality objectives for the region. Only the middle mainstem site) in Martis Creek showed a substantial decline relative to previous survey years. Squaw Creek: Bioassessment results for water year 2014 were far short of the TMDL target (BCS of 25) with BCS values of 13, 19, and 13 for upper, middle, and lower meadow sites, respectively. The mean BCS value for all survey years is 15.3 (range 7 to 27). Historically, BCS values have only met or exceeded the target value of 25 during one survey year (two of the three sites in 2012). Particles less than 3 mm diameter (%fines+sand), along with D50, are the two physical habitat parameters identified as important indicators of habitat suitability for aquatic life in the context of the Squaw Creek sediment TMDL. The numerical target for D50 is an increasing trend approaching 40 mm or greater, while the target for %fines+sand is a decreasing trend approaching 25 percent or less in the Squaw Creek meadow reach. Both of these parameters were far short of target values in 2014; historical values are also well below TMDL targets. Effectiveness of MS4 Permit Activities The effectiveness of implementing some of the permit related stormwater management activities can be evaluated through the comparisons presented herein. Because this is only the fifth year of long- term implementation of the TRWQMP and relatively little changes to the watershed have occurred, spatial comparisons are most appropriate at this time. The temporal water quality trends identified in this report are likely related to differences in precipitation amounts rather than specific management actions and more data is required to evaluate their significance. Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan Water Year 2014 Annual Monitoring Report Executive Summary ES-7 The WY 2014 results from community level discrete sampling and Donner Creek outfall modeling do demonstrate the effectiveness of wetland and riparian systems in treating runoff and reducing flow volumes. Also, previous community level monitoring has shown that permanent stormwater treatment BMPs present in some of the drainage systems provide clear benefits. When compared to other sites, the water quality at the treated sites is clearly improved with respect to all the monitored pollutants in almost every runoff event. Placer County should consider updating their outreach strategy for contracted maintenance entities such as the Northstar Community Services District (NCSD). According to the NCSD website, NCSD performs snow removal and sanding at a rate 3-4 times greater than that provided by Placer County. While the actual sand application rates are unknown, reducing sand application rates and total sand volumes would likely provide water quality benefits. Additional benefits may be associated with the use of clean sand with smaller fine particle fractions. These fine particles and associated pollutants are easily entrained in stormwater runoff and don’t readily settle out of the water column. Prioritization of Existing TRWQMP Elements The TRWQMP is currently being implemented as planned. Overall, monitoring activities should be continued per the guidance in the TRWQMP and the adaptive management based modifications that have been made to the program over the initial five years of implementation. There is a continued need to develop more comprehensive and robust datasets that will help to identify specific areas of concern and evaluate stormwater management program performance. For WY 2015, monitoring will consist of near-continuous turbidity monitoring and sediment load evaluations in Martis Creek and the Truckee River as well as tributary and community level water quality monitoring in Martis Creek. Recommended modifications to the program during WY 2015 include the relocation of the gaging station at the mouth of Martis Creek at Martis Creek Reservoir (GS-MC2) to East Martis Creek and the procurement and operation of two additional near-continuous turbidity stations within the Martis Creek watershed. 1-1 Section 1 Introduction As Small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s), Placer County (County) and the Town of Truckee (Town) must comply with the State’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Phase II Small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4) General Permit (Permit) for stormwater discharges. In accordance with the 2003 Permit (Order No. 2003-0005-DWQ), the County and Town each developed Storm Water Management Programs (SWMPs) (Placer County, 2007 and Town of Truckee, 2007) which were required by the Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board (Lahontan) to include the development of a comprehensive water quality monitoring plan for the Middle Truckee River Watershed. Additionally, Clean Water Act 303(d) Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) programs are being implemented in both Squaw Creek and the Middle Truckee River. In response to these regulations, the Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan (TRWQMP) (2NDNATURE, LLC, 2008) was developed collaboratively by the County and Town to cost-effectively assess the effectiveness of their ongoing SWMPs with respect to protecting downstream water resources. The SWMPs remained effective until July 1, 2013 when the new Phase II Permit became effective (SWRCB, 2013a). Under the new permit, SWMPs are no longer required to be developed and submitted by Permittees and the required storm water control measures are listed within the Permit itself. Annual reports are required to document compliance with these controls. Placer County and Town of Truckee are also required to comply with all TMDLs identified in Attachment G of the permit - Region Specific Requirements for the Lahontan Region. Currently, Attachment G lists the Middle Truckee River Watershed TMDL for sediment where urban runoff is listed as a source (Order No. 2013-001-DWQ, Attachment G). Revisions to Attachment G are proposed which would add the Squaw Creek TMDL for Sediment and implementation language for both the Squaw Creek and Middle Truckee River TMDLs (SWRCB, 2013b). The TRWQMP is a fifteen year comprehensive water quality monitoring plan that is intended to be implemented in three phases. Phase 1 consists of baseline data collection, and is scheduled to occur over a three to five year period. The County and Town began implementation of Phase 1 during the 2010 water year (WY 2010) (October 1, 2009 through September 30, 2010). Phase 2 is intended to occur over a two year period and will strategically expand on the monitoring activities conducted during Phase 1. Phase 3 will incorporate adaptive management of TRWQMP elements based on data and findings from Phases 1 and 2. Phase 3 will continue through the fifteenth and final year of TRWQMP implementation (WY 2024). The level of implementation during each phase will depend on a number of factors including cooperation by other independent entities conducting water quality monitoring in the watershed and the availability of funding. Several documents have been previously produced during the planning and implementation of the initial Phase 1 monitoring program. These documents and a brief description of their content are as follows: Evaluation of Existing Monitoring for Integration with the Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan (CDM Smith, 2010a) provides a review of the existing monitoring programs that were identified for potential integration in the TRWQMP and develops recommendations to begin their incorporation. Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan Section 1 · Introduction Water Year 2014 Annual Monitoring Report 1-2 Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan, Phase 1 Permitting and Approvals Requirements (CDM Smith, 2010b). Identifies and tracks the permitting and approvals required for each type of assessment, their proposed location, property ownership, contact information, approvals schedule, required fees and required submittal information. Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan Monitoring Site Selection Report (CDM Smith, 2010c) presents evaluations and recommendations for monitoring site locations used for the initial Phase 1 implementation. Sampling and Analysis Plan, Water Year 2011 (CDM Smith, 2011a) and (CDM Smith, 2011b) describes the initial management strategy and the specific monitoring activities that were implemented under the first three years of Phase 1. Equipment Installation Report (CDM Smith, 2011c) documents the installation of the stream gage and the tributary and community level water quality monitoring stations in the Martis Creek watershed. Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan Field Equipment Operations and Maintenance Manual (CDM Smith, 2011d) provides an inventory of monitoring equipment as well as the protocols followed for operating and maintaining the equipment. Sampling and Analysis Plan, Water Year 2013 (CDM Smith, 2013a) and (CDM Smith, 2013b) describes the revised management strategy and the specific monitoring activities that were implemented for WY 2013. Sampling and Analysis Plan, Water Year 2014 (CDM Smith, 2014a) and (CDM Smith, 2014b) provide revisions to the 2013 SAPs to reflect changes implemented as part of the TRWQMP’s adaptive management strategy. The Sampling and Analysis Plans are updated annually as appropriate to document revisions to monitoring activities. The results of WY 2010 monitoring activities were presented in two reports that were produced separately by the County and Town. To better document the program as a whole, the results of WY 2011- 2013 monitoring activities were presented in single documents produced jointly by the County and Town. These reports include the following: Placer County: Annual Report for Implementation of the Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan, Water Year 2010 (CDM Smith, 2010d); Town of Truckee: Annual Report for Implementation of the Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan, Water Year 2010 (CDM Smith, 2010e); Town of Truckee/County of Placer: Joint Annual Monitoring Report for Implementation of the Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan, Water Year 2011 (CDM Smith, 2011e); and Town of Truckee/County of Placer: Joint Annual Monitoring Report for Implementation of the Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan, Water Year 2012 (CDM Smith, 2013c). Town of Truckee/County of Placer: Joint Annual Monitoring Report for Implementation of the Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan, Water Year 2013 (CDM Smith, 2013d). Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan Water Year 2014 Annual Monitoring Report Section 1 · Introduction 1-3 This Joint Annual Monitoring Report describes the monitoring activities performed by Placer County and the Town of Truckee during WY 2014 and presents their results. Data collection activities during this fourth year of the TRWQMP’s implementation included: Targeted rapid assessment methodology (RAM) surveys to assess fine sediment distributions in stream channels, Bioassessments to gage stream health based on its benthic macroinvertebrate community, Community level discrete water quality sampling within the Martis Creek sub- watershed, Tributary level discrete water quality sampling within the Martis Creek sub- watershed, Continuous discharge and turbidity monitoring within the Truckee River and Martis Creek, and Donner Creek outfall modeling. Figure 1 -1a Martis Creek Main Stem February 2014 Figure 1 -1b Martis Creek Main Stem October 2014 Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan Section 1 · Introduction Water Year 2014 Annual Monitoring Report 1-4 This page intentionally left blank. 2-1 Section 2 TRWQMP Summary The purpose of the TRWQMP is to provide a strategy for assessing the effectiveness of the County and Town stormwater management programs in protecting downstream water resources. The TRWQMP provides guidelines for conducting multiple types of monitoring activities to evaluate the various actions that are being implemented to protect natural receiving waters from the impacts of stormwater runoff and illicit discharges. This section provides a summary of the TRWQMP’s purpose and presents the goals and objectives that were defined to help guide its implementation. 2.1 Purpose The County and Town SWMPs served as the guiding documents for the initial development of the TRWQMP in 2008. The SWMPs outlined two categories of assessment for evaluating the effectiveness of stormwater management programs as described below. Note that the SWMPs were effective until July 1, 2013, and requirements of the new 2013 Permit are applicable from that date forward. Compliance assessment focuses on inspections of activities that may contribute to poor quality of stormwater runoff with the goal of enforcing compliance with the guidelines delineated in the Permit. Compliance monitoring is conducted by the County and Town staff as outlined in the Permit and is not addressed by the TRWMQP. Performance assessment involves directly evaluating the water quality of stormwater runoff and receiving waters in order to assess the success of the permit required actions in protecting surface water resources. Results from the TRWQMP can inform strategies for stormwater management by identifying sub-watersheds of concern and prioritizing pollutant sources that disproportionately affect water quality. The second category, performance assessment, is the primary focus of the TRWQMP. The overall purpose of the TRWQMP is to assess the effectiveness of permit required stormwater management actions taken to protect natural surface waters. The TRWQMP also promotes collaboration among the various independent groups performing monitoring in the Truckee River Watershed. The TRWQMP aims to create of a more unified data management and reporting structure which will help to identify and track pollutant sources and evaluate long-term water quality trends. 2.2 Goals and Objectives The following set of goals and objectives were defined during the development of the TRWQMP to help describe its purpose and the guidelines under which it was developed. TRWQMP Goal 1: Comply with regulatory NPDES permits, Lahontan Board Orders, Middle Truckee River Sediment TMDL, Squaw Creek sediment TMDL, and the Martis Valley Community Plan for Placer County and the Town of Truckee. TRWQMP Goal 2: Develop water quality monitoring datasets that will be scientifically defensible and provide accurate and representative data to evaluate the effectiveness of Stormwater Management Programs in protecting surface water resources. Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan Section 2 · TRWQMP Summary Water Year 2014 Annual Monitoring Report 2-2 TRWQMP Goal 3: Develop a monitoring plan that is economically feasible to implement and maintain over time. TRWQMP Goal 4: Facilitate collaboration, effort-sharing and integration of multiple independent private and public monitoring efforts. To meet the goals of the TRWQMP, a more focused set of objectives were developed as follows: Provide a comprehensive and integrated data collection, data analysis and reporting framework to evaluate and track the status of surface water resources within the project area spatially and over time. Prioritize monitoring resources on spatial locations determined to be existing and/or future potential source areas. Focus monitoring resources on pollutants of concern and indicators that are clearly rationalized for each location of monitoring. Prioritize pollutants based on greatest risk to surface water resources due to specific land use activities. Maximize monitoring resources by including a range of monitoring types that vary in frequency of collection, relative cost to complete and statistical accuracy. Focus monitoring resources on times (season, storm events, etc.) when potential source area water quality is expected to deviate greatest from observations at minimally impacted locations. The TRWQMP describes multiple assessment types to be implemented in a phased approach. Also, data collection and analysis activities are intended to be flexible from year to year to allow adjustments based on changes to available funding and new information that is developed through the program’s implementation. To focus the monitoring activities and maximize their value, additional objectives, specific to each assessment type, were developed to focus implementation on answering specific water quality related questions. The following additional objectives were developed for the WY 2014 Phase 1 monitoring: Rapid Assessments Describe the current distribution of fine sediment in Bear Creek, Squaw Creek and Martis Creek within the monitored intervals. Evaluate the rapid assessment results from 2010, 2012 and 2014 in an effort to identify and characterize any trends that may be emerging. Identify potential correlations between sediment impacted stream segments and potential upstream sources or other stream or geological characteristics. Bioassessments Describe the current stream health of Squaw and Martis Creeks as indicated by their benthic macroinvertebrate communities. Evaluate the bioassessment results from 2010, 2012 and 2014 in an effort to identify and characterize any trends that may be emerging. Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan Water Year 2014 Annual Monitoring Report Section 2 · TRWQMP Summary 2-3 Identify potential correlations between stream health and watershed characteristics/land uses. Community Discrete Samples Characterize the water quality of stormwater runoff from catchments with varying characteristics and stormwater management practices to identify problem locations within the project area. Evaluate monitoring results to identify and characterize any trends that may be emerging. Conduct source area analysis for problem locations based on pollutants of concern present in the runoff. Tributary Discrete Samples Characterize the water quality differences among the various Martis Creek tributaries. Evaluate monitoring results to identify and characterize any trends that may be emerging. Conduct source area analysis based on pollutants present in the tributaries. Discharge and Turbidity Monitoring Collect turbidity and total suspended solids (TSS) data and develop correlations between these two parameters. Characterize annual discharge patterns and volumes for the Truckee River and Martis Creek. Utilize measured, and USGS discharge data, together with the turbidity:TSS correlation to calculate suspended sediment loads in the Truckee River upstream and downstream of the Town of Truckee and in West Martis Ck and the main stem of Martis Creek. Integrate similar Truckee River Watershed Council data to characterize suspended sediment loads delivered to the Truckee River from Donner and Trout Creeks. Conduct comparisons to suspended sediment load estimates presented in Truckee River TMDL and evaluate loads originating within Town boundary against TMDL defined load allocations. Apply the newly developed turbidity:TSS correlation to available historic turbidity data collected by the Department of Water Resources to identify and evaluate past and ongoing trends in the Truckee River suspended sediment loads. Develop and apply discharge:TSS relationships to be used as a second method of calculating suspended sediment loading, as well as to evaluate temporal trends in sediment generation and supply. The data from each of these assessment types will also provide existing conditions water quality information to be used for the comparison of future data and evaluation of water quality trends over time. Additionally, the data from sites exhibiting good water quality can provide realistic water quality targets when planning stormwater improvements for problem areas. Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan Section 2 · TRWQMP Summary Water Year 2014 Annual Monitoring Report 2-4 This page intentionally left blank. 3-1 Section 3 Summary of the Water Year 2014 Monitoring Period This section presents a description of the WY 2014 monitoring period in terms of the precipitation patterns, stream discharge, land use activities and regulatory structure in place between October 1, 2013 and September 30, 2014. 3.1 Precipitation Summary The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) SNOpack TELemetry (SNOTEL) Central Sierra Snow Laboratory (Css Lab) (Site 428) and Truckee #2 (Site 834) weather stations were the two sources of precipitation data for WY 2014 (USDA, 2014). The Css Lab is located at approximately 7,000 ft. above sea level, just to the west of the Sierra Crest near Donner Summit, and therefore provides a characterization of higher elevation precipitation patterns for the Truckee River Watershed. It should be noted that due to its location on the western side of the Sierra Crest, the Css Lab site receives larger amounts of precipitation than the Truckee River watershed that is east of the crest where it is affected by the rain shadow. The Truckee #2 station is located at approximately 6,500 ft. above sea level and is representative of the lower elevations in the watershed area being monitored under this program. Cumulative precipitation and snow water equivalent (SWE) for WY 2014 are presented graphically in Figures 3-1 and 3-2, which also include historical average precipitation and SWE at these locations. Tables 3-1 through 3-4 present monthly precipitation and SWE totals for each of the five years of TRWQMP implementation (2010-2014). These values are compared to historical averages to illustrate the relative magnitude of the water year, in terms of precipitation and snowfall, compared to an average or normal water year. The total annual precipitation received during WY 2014 was approximately 61 and 67 percent of average at the Css Lab and Truckee #2 stations, respectively. Precipitation was above average for the months of February, August, and September and the largest event of the season occurred from February 7, 2014 to February 10, 2014 when 5.7-9.5 inches of precipitation (mostly rain) fell over the project area. Very little precipitation occurred in all other months with totals well below average. Snowfall totals and SWE values during WY 2014 were even further below average than the precipitation totals at both the Css Lab and Truckee #2 stations, indicating that a large portion of the total precipitation fell in the form of rain with limited opportunity for snowfall accumulations. During the first five years of TRWQMP implementation, annual precipitation amounts have been highly variable. Annual precipitation totals during WY 2010 were very close to average while WY 2011 annual totals were around 150 percent of average. Water years 2012, 2013 and 2014 were three consecutive below average years with precipitation totals ranging from 67 to 78 percent of average. Snowfall and SWE trends generally correlate with total precipitation, but WY 2012, 2013 and 2014 all produced a limited seasonal snowpack. Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan Section 3 · Summary of the 2014 Monitoring Period Water Year 2014 Annual Monitoring Report 3-2 Figure 3-1 Daily Precipitation at Css Lab (USDA, 2014) Figure 3-2 Daily Precipitation in Truckee, CA (USDA, 2014) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Pr e c i p i t a t i o n ( i n ) Date 2014 Water Year Precipitation at Css Lab Water Year 2014 Precipitation Average Precipitation Water Year 2014 SWE Average SWE 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Pr e c i p i t a t i o n ( i n ) Date 2014 Water Year Precipitation in Truckee Water Year 2014 Precipitation Average Precipitation Water Year 2014 SWE Average SWE Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan Water Year 2014 Annual Monitoring Report Section 3 · Summary of the 2014 Monitoring Period 3-3 Table 3-1. Css Lab Precipitation Totals for Water Years 2010-2014 Water Years 1 WY 2010 Oct-09 Nov-09 Dec-09 Jan-10 Feb-10 Mar-10 Apr-10 May-10 Jun-10 Jul-10 Aug-10 Sep-10 Total Monthly Precipitation Total 5.8 3.8 10.7 12.4 7.2 9.8 10.3 5.9 1.1 0.0 0.3 0.4 67.7 Percent of Average 161% 49% 90% 114% 65% 105% 197% 160% 106% 0% 48% 25% 101% WY 2011 Oct-10 Nov-10 Dec-10 Jan-11 Feb-11 Mar-11 Apr-11 May-11 Jun-11 Jul-11 Aug-11 Sep-11 Total Monthly Precipitation Total 11.8 11.9 20.6 2.9 12.1 20.1 6.8 5.4 5.2 0.0 0.1 2.1 99.0 Percent of Average 328% 155% 173% 27% 109% 215% 130% 146% 500% 0.0% 16% 129% 148% WY 2012 Oct-11 Nov-11 Dec-11 Jan-12 Feb-12 Mar-12 Apr-12 May-12 Jun-12 Jul-12 Aug-12 Sep-12 Total Monthly Precipitation Total 5.3 3.8 0.4 8.4 4.8 16.4 6.7 0 1.3 0.5 0.3 0.3 48.2 Percent of Average 147% 49% 3% 77% 43% 175% 128% 0% 125% 143% 48% 18% 72% WY 2013 Oct-12 Nov-12 Dec-12 Jan-13 Feb-13 Mar-13 Apr-13 May-13 Jun-13 Jul-13 Aug-13 Sep-13 Total Monthly Precipitation Total 4.4 13.6 17.3 1.9 1.1 5.0 1.3 2.5 1.8 0.0 0.7 2.8 52.4 Percent of Average 122% 177% 146% 17% 10% 53% 25% 68% 173% 0% 113% 172% 78% WY 2014 Oct-13 Nov-13 Dec-13 Jan-14 Feb-14 Mar-14 Apr-14 May-14 Jun-14 Jul-14 Aug-14 Sep-14 Total Monthly Precipitation Total 2.0 1.7 2.4 2.9 13.4 9.8 3.5 1.3 0.0 0.1 1.7 1.8 40.6 Percent of Average 56% 22% 20% 27% 121% 105% 67% 35% 0% 29% 274% 110% 61% Average Monthly Precipitation 2 3.6 7.69 11.88 10.91 11.07 9.37 5.22 3.69 1.04 0.35 0.62 1.63 67.07 1 Data acquired from the SNOTEL Css Lab Site (USDA, 2014) 2 Based on data recorded from 1981 through 2010 Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan Section 3 · Summary of the 2014 Monitoring Period Water Year 2014 Annual Monitoring Report 3-4 Table 3-2. Truckee Precipitation Totals for Water Years 2010-2014 1 WY 2010 Oct-09 Nov-09 Dec-09 Jan-10 Feb-10 Mar-10 Apr-10 May-10 Jun-10 Jul-10 Aug-10 Sep-10 Total Monthly Precipitation Total 3.7 2 5.6 7.3 3.7 4.8 5.7 1.1 0.2 0.0 0.5 0.1 34.7 Percent of Average 206% 49% 98% 124% 64% 96% 219% 79% 33% 0% 125% 11% 101% WY 2011 Oct-10 Nov-10 Dec-10 Jan-11 Feb-11 Mar-11 Apr-11 May-11 Jun-11 Jul-11 Aug-11 Sep-11 Total Monthly Precipitation Total 8.0 6.8 11.0 0.9 8.0 13.5 1.9 2.7 2.3 0.8 0.1 0.2 56.2 Percent of Average 444% 166% 193% 15% 138% 270% 73% 193% 383% 800% 25% 22% 164% WY 2012 Oct-11 Nov-11 Dec-11 Jan-12 Feb-12 Mar-12 Apr-12 May-12 Jun-12 Jul-12 Aug-12 Sep-12 Total Monthly Precipitation Total 2.0 1.6 0.2 5.1 2.8 7.4 2.7 0.3 0.3 0.3 1.9 0.3 24.9 Percent of Average 111% 39% 4% 86% 48% 148% 104% 21% 50% 300% 475% 33% 73% WY 2013 Oct-12 Nov-12 Dec-12 Jan-13 Feb-13 Mar-13 Apr-13 May-13 Jun-13 Jul-13 Aug-13 Sep-13 Total Monthly Precipitation Total 2.4 7.2 10.7 0.7 0.2 2.0 0.5 1.3 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.7 25.9 Percent of Average 133% 176% 188% 12% 3% 40% 19% 93% 17% 100% 0% 78% 76% WY 2014 Oct-13 Nov-13 Dec-13 Jan-14 Feb-14 Mar-14 Apr-14 May-14 Jun-14 Jul-14 Aug-14 Sep-14 Total Monthly Precipitation Total 1.1 0.6 1.4 2.1 6.9 3.9 1.4 1.1 0.0 0.8 2.4 1.2 22.9 Percent of Average 61% 15% 25% 36% 119% 78% 54% 79% 0% 800% 600% 133% 67% Average Monthly Precipitation 2 1.8 4.1 5.7 5.9 5.8 5.0 2.6 1.4 0.6 0.1 0.4 0.9 34.3 1 Data acquired from the SNOTEL Truckee #2 Site (USDA, 2014) 2 Based on data recorded from 1981 through 2010 Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan Water Year 2014 Annual Monitoring Report Section 3 · Summary of the 2014 Monitoring Period 3-5 Table 3-3. Css Lab Snow Water Equivalent for Water Years 2010-2014 1 WY 2010 Nov-09 Dec-09 Jan-10 Feb-10 Mar-10 Apr-10 May-10 Snow Water Equivalent 2.3 13.4 25.8 32.9 39.9 39.3 19.9 Percent of Average 52% 104% 117% 107% 123% 185% 452% WY 2011 Nov-10 Dec-10 Jan-11 Feb-11 Mar-11 Apr-11 May-11 Snow Water Equivalent 10.7 31.1 33.2 46.9 70.9 66.6 47.7 Percent of Average 243% 241% 151% 152% 219% 314% 1084% WY 2012 Nov-11 Dec-11 Jan-12 Feb-12 Mar-12 Apr-12 May-12 Snow Water Equivalent 2.3 2.0 5.5 9.6 24.2 12.5 0.0 Percent of Average 52% 16% 25% 31% 75% 59% 0% WY 2013 Nov-12 Dec-12 Jan-13 Feb-13 Mar-13 Apr-13 May-13 Snow Water Equivalent 3.9 18.0 18.9 19.0 12.6 0.0 0.0 Percent of Average 89% 140% 86% 62% 39% 0% 0% WY 2014 Nov-13 Dec-13 Jan-14 Feb-14 Mar-14 Apr-14 May-14 Snow Water Equivalent 0.9 2.6 0.8 7.7 10.7 0.5 0.0 Percent of Average 20% 20% 4% 25% 33% 2% 0% Historical Snow Water Equivalent 2 4.4 12.9 22.0 30.8 32.4 21.2 4.4 1 Data acquired from the SNOTEL Css Lab Site (USDA, 2014) 2 Based on data recorded from 1981 through 2010 Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan Section 3 · Summary of the 2014 Monitoring Period Water Year 2014 Annual Monitoring Report 3-6 Table 3-4. Truckee Snow Water Equivalent for Water Years 2010-2014 1 WY 2010 Nov-09 Dec-09 Jan-10 Feb-10 Mar-10 Apr-10 May-10 Snow Water Equivalent 0.0 1.9 7.2 14.3 18.7 19.2 13.6 Percent of Average 0% 31% 68% 96% 118% 130% 247% WY 2011 Nov-10 Dec-10 Jan-11 Feb-11 Mar-11 Apr-11 May-11 Snow Water Equivalent 1.6 9.2 15.3 18.4 31.6 32.9 10.6 Percent of Average 84% 151% 145% 123% 199% 222% 193% WY 2012 Nov-11 Dec-11 Jan-12 Feb-12 Mar-12 Apr-12 May-12 Snow Water Equivalent 1.2 1.9 2.8 5.2 8.9 7.3 0.0 Percent of Average 63% 31% 26% 35% 56% 49% 0% WY 2013 Nov-12 Dec-12 Jan-13 Feb-13 Mar-13 Apr-13 May-13 Snow Water Equivalent 1.1 2.6 10.4 11.1 10.2 5.9 0.0 Percent of Average 58% 43% 98% 74% 64% 40% 0% WY 2014 Nov-13 Dec-13 Jan-14 Feb-14 Mar-14 Apr-14 May-14 Snow Water Equivalent 0.9 0.0 1.7 2.5 3.4 1.7 0.0 Percent of Average 47% 0% 16% 17% 21% 11% 0% Historical Snow Water Equivalent 2 1.9 6.1 10.6 14.9 15.9 14.8 5.5 1 Data acquired from the SNOTEL Truckee #2 Site (USDA, 2014) 2 Based on data recorded from 1981 through 2010 Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan Water Year 2014 Annual Monitoring Report Section 3 · Summary of the 2014 Monitoring Period 3-7 3.2 Stream Discharge Summary Stream discharge in the Middle Truckee River is partially regulated by dam operations on Lake Tahoe and Donner Lake. Additional flow is contributed by several unregulated tributaries including Bear, Squaw, Silver, Deer, Pole, Deep, Cabin, and Cold Creeks. Below downtown Truckee, additional flows are contributed by Trout, Martis, Union Valley and Prosser Creeks and the Little Truckee River. Discharge from Martis Creek, Prosser Creek, and the Little Truckee River are also regulated by dams. Figure 3-3 presents the watersheds of the Middle Truckee River (2NDNATURE, LLC, 2008). Figures 3-4 through 3-7 present WY 2014 hydrographs of the Truckee River at Tahoe City (Gage # 10337500), the Truckee River 2.5 miles upstream of Truckee (Gage # 10338000), Donner Creek at Hwy 89 (Gage # 10338700), and Truckee River at Boca Bridge (Gage # 10344505) respectively. These gages are maintained by the United States Geological Survey (USGS), and the data include daily mean discharge and historic median daily discharge values. Discharge rates in the Truckee River fluctuated as the result of precipitation events, snowmelt runoff and releases from the Lake Tahoe dam in Tahoe City and other regulated tributaries. Peak flows in WY 2014 were the result of several rain-on-snow events in January, February, and March. The magnitude of these peak flows were significantly less than historical peak flows. For example, the WY 2014 annual peak flow for the Truckee River near Truckee (USGS 10338000) was 724 cfs, a value less than half that recorded in WY 2013 (1,810 cfs) and only a fraction of the highest annual peak flow (11,900 cfs) recorded for the 69-year period of record. Earlier than normal releases from Lake Tahoe were required to meet the downstream water supply demand as seen in Figure 3-4. Figure 3-5 represents the flow from the tributaries upstream of Truckee. It shows that the snowmelt runoff from these tributaries was below average and a large portion of total discharge in the Truckee River came from Lake Tahoe dam releases. Donner Creek daily discharge was below the long-term median daily discharge throughout most of the monitoring period as seen in Figure 3-6. Flows at the Truckee River at Boca Bridge (USGS 10344505) remained near median values through July 2014. Regulated flows from above this site were decreased in August causing the discharge at this site to drop from 500 cfs to 200 cfs. Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan Section 3 · Summary of the 2014 Monitoring Period Water Year 2014 Annual Monitoring Report 3-8 Figure 3-3 Middle Truckee River Watershed Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan Water Year 2014 Annual Monitoring Report Section 3 · Summary of the 2014 Monitoring Period 3-9 Source: http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/dv?referred_module=sw&site_no=10337500 Figure 3-4 Truckee River Discharge at Tahoe City (USGS, 2014) Source: http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/dv?referred_module=sw&site_no=10338000 Figure 3-5 Truckee River Discharge near Truckee (USGS, 2014) Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan Section 3 · Summary of the 2014 Monitoring Period Water Year 2014 Annual Monitoring Report 3-10 Source: http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/dv?referred_module=sw&site_no=10338700 Figure 3-6 Donner Creek Discharge at Highway 89 (USGS, 2014) Source: http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/dv?referred_module=sw&site_no=10344505 Figure 3-7 Truckee River at Boca Bridge (USGS, 2014) Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan Water Year 2014 Annual Monitoring Report Section 3 · Summary of the 2014 Monitoring Period 3-11 3.3 Land Use Conditions Fifteen sub-watersheds drain to the Truckee River within the TRWQMP project area (Placer County and Town of Truckee). Based on the preliminary GIS analysis conducted during the development of the TRWQMP, seven of these sub-watersheds are classified as having high disturbance and three of them are classified as having moderate disturbance (disturbance is a measure of the level of urban development and/or construction activity present within the subarea). These sub-watersheds are presented in Table 3-5 along with information on area size, land use, and relative disturbance rating. The remaining five sub-watersheds (Cabin Creek, Deep Creek, Deer Creek, Pole Creek, and Silver Creek) are classified with low disturbance and are not included in this table. In Placer County, the larger scale roadway construction activities during WY 2014 included the Northstar Roundabout Modification by Placer County DPW, and Highway 89 Drainage Improvements by Caltrans between Tahoe City and Alpine Meadows Road. Future large-scale resort and residential development projects are proposed within Olympic Valley, Alpine Meadows and Northstar in the coming years. Placer County is also planning Truckee River corridor public access projects in the future. The Town of Truckee implemented several roadway and bicycle trail construction projects during WY 2014 including the Bridge Street/East River Road Streetscape Improvement Project, the Brockway Road Paving and Drainage Project, the Glenshire Drive Bike Lane and Road Widening Project and the Truckee River Legacy Trail from Glenshire to east of Riverview Sports Park. The Town of Truckee also initiated a restoration project along Reach 1 of Trout Creek, a tributary to the Truckee River. The Town is planning more projects in the coming year for roadway and pedestrian improvements. The Coldstream Specific Plan was approved which would lead to residential and commercial development in the future. There was a small, 85 acre, fire (Boca Fire) near the confluence of the Little Truckee River and Truckee River that occurred in September 2014. Erosion control and re-seeding efforts were conducted after the fire and the monitoring results to date do not indicate any large water quality impacts. Major wildfires have not occurred elsewhere within the Middle Truckee Basin in recent years. Runoff from a high-intensity thunderstorm on August 7, 2014 resulted in measurable sheet wash, gully erosion, and bank failures in the Cold Creek watershed. These effects perpetuated a turbidity event that migrated down Cold Creek, Donner Creek, and the Truckee River which lasted more than 24 hours. There were no major landslides, floods or other events during this period, and the spring runoff was less than normal due to the small amounts of snowfall during the winter. Data collected during the 2014 monitoring period are representative of existing conditions during a year of drought and will improve the baseline dataset which will be used to evaluate future changes in the watershed. Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan Section 3 · Summary of the 2014 Monitoring Period Water Year 2014 Annual Monitoring Report 3-12 Table 3-5. Summary of TRWQMP Sub-Watersheds with High and Moderate Disturbance Ratings 1 Sub-Watershed Size (mi 2) Land Uses Disturbance Rating Squaw Creek 8.2 Forest, meadow, ski resort, commercial, residential, dirt roads, golf course, secondary roadways High Martis Creek 40.9 Forest, meadow, ski resort, commercial, residential, dirt roads, golf courses, primary roadway, secondary roadways High Truckee Town Corridor 14.1 Forest, commercial, residential, primary roadways, secondary roadways, legacy sites High Bear Creek 5.3 Forest, ski resort, commercial, residential, secondary roadways High Donner/Cold Creeks 17.0 Forest, residential, commercial, dirt roads, primary roadway, secondary roadways, legacy sites High Trout Creek 4.9 Forest, meadow, commercial, residential, primary roadway, secondary roadways, golf courses High Big Chief Corridor 23.4 Forest, commercial, residential, primary roadway High Glenshire/Union Valley 4.1 Forest, residential, secondary roadways Moderate Prosser/Alder Creeks 54 Forest, residential, ski area, dirt roads, secondary roadways Moderate Juniper Creek 10.8 Forest, residential commercial, dirt roads, secondary roadways Moderate 1 Information acquired from the TRWQMP (2NDNATURE, LLC, 2008) 3.4 Regulatory Requirements The development and implementation of the TRWQMP is guided by regulations to protect the beneficial uses defined for the Truckee River. The regulatory documents guiding the County and Town’s development and implementation of the TRWQMP are summarized as follows: Section 13267 Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board Orders required the County and Town to develop a comprehensive water quality monitoring plan (LRWQCB, 2007a). Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (Lahontan Basin Plan). March 31, 1995. The Lahontan Basin Plan took effect in 1995 and sets forth water quality standard for surface waters and ground waters within the Region. The Lahontan Basin Plan identifies general types of water quality problems and requires or recommends control measures for these problems. In some cases, it prohibits certain types of discharges in particular areas. The most recent amendments to the Lahontan Basin Plan were adopted in 2005 (LRWQCB, 2005). Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for Sediment, Squaw Creek, Placer County. April 2006. The objective of the Squaw Creek TMDL is to attain sediment-related water quality objectives that focus on the protection of in-stream aquatic life. The TMDL establishes indicators for biologic health and physical habitat. Responsible entities are required by the TMDL to implement monitoring programs (LRWQCB, 2006). Total Maximum Daily Load for Sediment, Middle Truckee River, Placer, Nevada and Sierra Counties. May 2008. The objective of the Middle Truckee River TMDL is to attain sediment- related water quality objectives that focus on the protection of in-stream aquatic life. The TMDL establishes a water column indicator and target value as an annual 90 th percentile suspended sediment concentration (SSC) of less than or equal to 25 milligrams per liter (mg/L) at Farad (USGS gage 10346000). Additional implementation based indicators for the TMDL include road sand application BMPs and recovery tracking, ski area BMPs and maintenance, dirt road improvement or decommissioning, and legacy site BMPs and restoration. Responsible entities Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan Water Year 2014 Annual Monitoring Report Section 3 · Summary of the 2014 Monitoring Period 3-13 are required to implement these programs. The estimated time frame for meeting the numeric targets and achieving the TMDL is 20 years (LRWQCB, 2008b). The renewed MS4 Permit incorporates the required stormwater control measures directly and requires permittees to submit annual reports summarizing activities and certifying compliance with all requirements. At the time of the second year Annual Report, Permittees are required to submit Program Effectiveness Assessments and Improvement Plans for their stormwater programs that include water quality monitoring data. In addition to the development and implementation of the TRWQMP, the County and Town have developed the following programs and plans: Town and County Stormwater Management Programs (SWMP). These documents provide a comprehensive plan to implement their respective SWMPs for the years 2007-2012. They describe the six minimum control measures (MCMs) required by the program as well as funding, monitoring, and evaluation. The six MCMs are public education and outreach, public involvement/participation, illicit discharge detection and elimination, construction site stormwater runoff control, post-construction stormwater management, and pollution prevention (Truckee, 2007) and (Placer, 2007). Although the written SWMPs are no longer required to be updated and submitted under the renewed MS4 Permit, the elements of the stormwater program continue to be implemented and reporting on their effectiveness will be conducted per the Permit requirements. Martis Valley Community Plan. December 16, 2003. Prepared by Placer County. The Martis Valley Community Plan (MVCP), in combination with the Placer County General Plan, is the official statement of Placer County setting forth goals, policies, assumptions, guidelines, standards, and implementation measures that will guide the physical, social, and economic development of the Martis Valley area to at least the year 2020. The MVCP includes the goals, policies, standards, implementation programs, the Land Use Diagram, the Circulation Plan Diagram, and the Recreation and Trails Diagram which together constitute Placer County’s formal policies for land use, development, and environmental quality (Pacific Municipal Consultants, 2003a). Martis Valley Community Plan Environmental Impact Report. The Environmental Impact Report (EIR) identified environmental resources, including water quality, which would potentially be impacted by implementing the MVCP. (Pacific Municipal Consultants, 2003b). One of the mitigations for potential water quality impacts included the development of a comprehensive water quality monitoring program by the County. Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan Section 3 · Summary of the 2014 Monitoring Period Water Year 2014 Annual Monitoring Report 3-14 This page intentionally left blank. 4-1 Section 4 Data Collection and Analysis Methodologies This section presents the data collection and analysis methodologies that were implemented during the fifth year of monitoring under the TRWQMP (WY 2014). The monitoring activities conducted during WY 2014included: Rapid Assessments, Bioassessments, Community level discrete water quality sampling, Tributary level discrete water quality sampling, Stream flow monitoring, Near-continuous turbidity monitoring, and Donner Creek Outfall Modeling. The TRWQMP serves as the overarching guidance document for the implementation of this monitoring program and contains documentation of field protocols, data analysis and reporting procedures. This section provides detailed descriptions of activities performed during WY 2014 and any modifications that were made to the TRWQMP guidance. Table 4-1 presents a summary of the types of assessments conducted by both the County and Town, the locations where monitoring was conducted, and a short description of each. The following subsections then present more detailed descriptions of the monitoring site locations and the data collection and analysis methodologies. Additional subsections are included to present the data quality objectives that have been developed for this program, the statistical analyses conducted on the various data groups and, finally, a summary of modifications that were made to the data collection and/or analysis methodologies. Additional information regarding specific monitoring protocols, site selection, equipment installation, and equipment operation and maintenance may be found in the Sampling and Analysis Plans (SAPs) and other supporting documents listed in Section 1 of this report. Table 4 -1. WY 201 4 TRWQMP Monitoring Summary Assessment Type Locations Performance Assessment Description Pl a c e r C o u n t y Rapid Assessment Bear Creek – Lower 1 mile Squaw Creek – Lower ½ mile Martis Creek – Lower 1 mile of the main stem, West Martis, and East Martis Physical measurements of channel substrate grain size and cobble embeddedness to characterize and track fine sediment distribution. Bioassessment 3 Sites on Squaw Creek 6 Sites in the Martis Creek Watershed Surveys of benthic macroinvertabrates and physical habitat to provide an indication of overall stream health and the impacts of upstream pollutant sources. Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan Section 4 · Data Collection and Analysis Methodologies Water Year 2014 Annual Monitoring Report 4-2 Table 4 -1. WY 201 4 TRWQMP Monitoring Summary Assessment Type Locations Performance Assessment Description Discrete Tributary Six sites in the Martis Creek Watershed. Collection of in -stream discrete water quality samples to characterize and track water quality in the various branches of Martis Creek. Discrete Community Two sites in the Martis Creek Watershed Collection of discrete samples of stormwater runoff to characterize and track the impacts of upstream land uses and water quality improvements. Stream Flow Gaging Station Three sites in the Martis Creek Watershed. A continuous record of stream discharge for Martis Creek to evaluate trends and develop annual pollutant load estimates. Near -Continuous Turbidity Two sites in the Martis Creek Watershed. A continuous record of stream turbidity for Martis Creek to evaluate trends, determine turbidity/suspended sediment relationships, and develop annual suspended sediment load estimates To w n o f T r u c k e e Near -Continuous Turbidity Two sites in the Truckee River. A continuous record of stream turbidity for the Truckee River to evaluate trends, determine turbidity/suspended sediment relationships, and develop annual suspended sediment load estimates Donner Creek Outfall Modeling Fifteen outfalls to Donner Creek. Development of a hydrologic and water quality model to estimate TSS loading from developed sub-watersheds discharging to Donner Creek. Collection of grab samples and qualitative observations from fifteen outfalls to validate model results. 4.1 Rapid Assessment Methodology The rapid assessment methodology (RAM) is intended to provide a method for evaluating the fine sediment distribution in the Truckee River and its tributaries. Rapid assessments provide data for spatial and temporal comparisons of evaluated reaches based on one or a few categories of concern. The rapid assessments performed for this program focus on characterizing stream conditions with respect to fine sediment (particles less than 2 mm in diameter) accumulation and distribution in the channel bottom and identifying potential sources upstream of surveyed stream segments. The rapid assessments are conducted biannually with the intent of developing a long-term data set to track changes in fine sediment distribution and identify specific areas of concern. 4.1.1 Monitoring Locations During Year 1 (WY 2010), the RAM stream intervals were established and documented in Bear, Squaw, Martis, West Martis, East Martis, Donner, and Trout Creeks as well as the Truckee River. Stream intervals approximately 700-1500m in length were designated using specific landmarks (e.g., bridges, tributary confluences, large buildings, boulders, etc.) easily discernable from high resolution aerial maps and field photographs. Intervals were documented in the project database. Detailed mapping was also developed to ensure consistency in locating the monitoring intervals during each monitoring event. In WY 2012, the RAM intervals on the Truckee River through the Truckee Town corridor were prioritized to focus on major stream confluences and road crossings. Rapid assessment surveys were conducted in one reach upstream and one reach downstream of Donner Creek, Bridge St, Trout Creek, State Route 267, Martis Creek, and Glenshire Drive. The same RAM intervals, established during WY 2010 in Bear, Squaw, Martis, West Martis and East Martis creeks, were surveyed again in 2012. The Trout and Donner Creek RAM segments were not surveyed in 2012. Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan Water Year 2014 Annual Monitoring Report Section 4 · Data Collection and Analysis Methodologies 4-3 In WY 2014, the RAM intervals on Bear, Squaw, Martis, West Martis and East Martis creeks were surveyed for a third time since the beginning of the program. RAM monitoring was not performed in the main stem of the Truckee River, or on Donner or Trout Creeks. For the WY 2014 monitored RAM segments, interval identification information and other characteristics are presented in Table 4-2 and location maps are provided in Figures 4-1 and 4-2 below. Table 4 -2. Summary of RAM Intervals Surveyed in WY 2014 Jurisdiction Interval ID Interval Length (m) No. of Reaches Physical Interval Description Interval Latitude / Longitude 1 Upstream End Downstream End Upstream End Downstream End Placer County Squaw Creek 750 5 750m upstream of Truckee River confluence Truckee River confluence 39° 12' 25.45" N 39° 12' 42.81" N 120° 12' 15.09" W 120° 11' 56.93" W Placer County Bear Creek 1650 11 1650m upstream of Truckee River confluence at Bridge Truckee River confluence 39° 11' 0.81" N 39° 11' 25.97" N 120° 12' 39.09" W 120° 11' 51.83" W Placer County Martis Creek 1650 11 1650m upstream of Middle Martis Creek confluence Middle Martis Creek confluence 39° 17' 56.2" N 39° 18' 6.96" N 120° 8' 5.43" W 120° 7' 17.34" W Placer County West Martis Creek 1650 11 1650m upstream of Middle Martis Creek confluence Confluence with Middle Martis Creek 39° 17' 29.88" N 39° 18' 6.80" N 120° 6' 52.62" W 120° 7' 17.09" W Placer County East Martis Creek 1650 11 1650m upstream of Martis Creek confluence Martis Creek confluence 39° 18' 31.21" N 39° 18' 53.45" N 120° 6' 26.89" W 120° 7' 1.41" W 1 Coordinate System: NAD 1983 State Plane California II FIPS 0402 Feet Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan Section 4 · Data Collection and Analysis Methodologies Water Year 2014 Annual Monitoring Report 4-4 Figure 4-1 Rapid Assessment Methodology Bear and Squaw Creek Site Vicinity Map Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan Water Year 2014 Annual Monitoring Report Section 4 · Data Collection and Analysis Methodologies 4-5 Figure 4-2 Rapid Assessment Methodology Martis Valley Site Vicinity Map Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan Section 4 · Data Collection and Analysis Methodologies Water Year 2014 Annual Monitoring Report 4-6 4.1.2 Field Evaluation Protocols The TRWQMP suggests that rapid assessments should be conducted during similar flow conditions each year. By conducting the assessment under the same flow conditions each year, inter-annual comparisons are possible. To conduct the rapid assessments, intervals were divided into 150m stream reaches, which were then surveyed at transects across the channel spaced every 15m. During WY 2010, transects were spaced every 30m as opposed to the 15m interval used during WY 2012 and WY 2014. Based on a better understanding of the level of effort required to conduct these surveys, the additional transects were incorporated in an effort to obtain higher resolution data. Five sediment grain size observations were recorded along the wetted width of each transect according to protocols outlined in the TRWQMP. The first transect measurement was taken at the beginning of the upstream reach (distance = 0m). See Figure 4-3 for an example reach showing transect locations for the furthest downstream reach of Martis Creek. Within each reach, sediment observations also included at least 12 measurements of the embeddedness of cobble-sized (64- 250mm) particles. These measurements were estimates of the percent by volume of the cobble embedded in fine sediment. If the transects did not include 12 cobble-sized particles, a random walk- through of the reach was performed to find and evaluate any additional cobbles needed to collect 12 measurements. 4.1.3 Data Management and Analysis Following the completion of the field work, the data was compiled and entered into electronic data tables. The tables were then reviewed by a secondary staff member who was also responsible for back-checking any corrections that were required. Any questionable data was flagged for further review by the project manager. All field datasheets were then stored and will be kept on file for a minimum of five years following the completion of the project. For each 150m reach, the grain size measurements were used to estimate the percentage of the channel bottom that was covered with fine sediment less than 2mm in diameter. The percentage of fine sediment measurements in each reach was then calculated and presented on color-coded GIS maps in increments of 10 percent (i.e. 0-10 percent, 10-20 percent, etc.). A figure was then developed for each stream interval to illustrate the distribution of fine sediment according to monitoring reach. Mean percent cobble embeddedness and median particle diameter (D50) measurements were also calculated. Several additional analyses were conducted using the RAM data from WY 2010, 2012 and 2014. A temporal comparison of results was made to identify and evaluate changes in fine sediment distributions between the three years, and a gradient based analysis evaluated possible correlations between fine sediment and channel gradient. Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan Section 4 · Data Collection and Analysis Methodologies Water Year 2014 Annual Monitoring Report 4-7 Figure 4-3 Typical RAM Reach Showing Transect Points Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan Section 4 · Data Collection and Analysis Methodologies Water Year 2014 Annual Monitoring Report 4-8 4.2 Bioassessment Monitoring Bioassessments provide an indication of stream health by evaluating the benthic macroinvertebrate community and physical habitat conditions present in a given stream reach. Under the TRWQMP schedule, data collection activities for the project are conducted biannually beginning in 2010. As with the rapid assessments, the bioassessment data collection should be conducted during the same years and at the same time of year at all sites in the project area to improve comparability of results. Bioassessments were performed at Squaw Creek and Martis Creek in the summer and fall of 2014 following slightly different protocols. Squaw Creek sampling followed the specific bioassessment protocol developed in conjunction with the Squaw Creek sediment TMDL, while Martis Creek sampling followed the statewide standard bioassessment protocol (i.e., California’s Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program [SWAMP] protocol [SWRCB, 2007]). 4.2.1 Monitoring Locations All bioassessment sites on Squaw and Martis Creeks were previously established and monitored. During the first year of TRWQMP implementation (WY 2010), field crews visited the sites to confirm each location, its access requirements and then documented them in data tables and the project database. The sites and access routes are also mapped using available GIS data and aerial photography so that they can be accurately relocated in the field for each subsequent monitoring event. The bioassessment stream and station location information is summarized in Table 4-3 and maps showing the locations are provided in Figures 4-4 and 4-5. All 2014 bioassessment monitoring locations were identical to those surveyed in 2010 and 2012. Table 4-3. Bioassessment Locations Surface Water Reach Length (meter) Station ID Reach Latitude / Longitude 1 Upstream Endpoint Downstream Endpoint Squaw Creek 150 Bio-SC1 39° 12' 5.02" N 120° 13' 10.68" W 39° 12' 2.60" N 120° 13' 12.11" W 150 Bio-SC2 39° 12' 18.53" N 120° 12' 56.59" W 39° 12' 17.18" N 120° 13' 1.98" W 150 Bio-SC3 39° 12' 18.99" N 120° 12' 44.69" W 39° 12' 19.19" N 120° 12' 49.61" W Martis Creek 150 Bio-MC2 39° 16' 17.83" N 120° 10' 14.00" W 39° 16' 22.019" N 120° 10' 14.17" W 150 Bio-MC5 39° 17' 42.42" N 120° 8' 24.82" W 39° 17' 43.51" N 120° 8' 28.81" W Upper Martis Creek 150 Bio-MC1 39° 16' 53.99" N 120° 7' 2.22" W 39° 16' 49.88" N 120° 7' 3.63" W West Martis Creek 150 Bio-MC3 39° 17' 45.9" N 120° 7' 4.1" W 39° 17' 48.8" N 120° 7' 7.0" W 150 Bio-MC4 39° 18' 7.39" N 120° 7' 16.83" W 39° 18' 5.88" N 120° 7' 22.18" W East Martis Creek 150 Bio-MC6 39° 18' 31.34" N 120° 6' 48.84" W 39° 18' 30.26" N 120° 6' 43.47" W 1 Coordinate System: NAD 1983 State Plane California II FIPS 0402 Feet Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan Water Year 2014 Annual Monitoring Report Section 4 · Data Collection and Analysis Methodologies 4-9 Figure 4-4 Squaw Creek Bioassessment Monitoring Locations Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan Section 4 · Data Collection and Analysis Methodologies Water Year 2014 Annual Monitoring Report 4-10 Figure 4-5 Martis Valley Bioassessment Monitoring Locations Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan Water Year 2014 Annual Monitoring Report Section 4 · Data Collection and Analysis Methodologies 4-11 4.2.2 Field Evaluation Protocols The TRWQMP bioassessments are conducted biannually in Squaw and Martis Creeks although the specific protocols used for each stream are somewhat different. 4.2.2.1 Squaw Creek Surveys in Squaw Creek followed the Sampling and Analysis Requirements for Numeric Target Monitoring for the Squaw Creek Sediment TMDL (LRWQCB, 2008). Upper, middle, and lower meadow sampling locations each consisted of a 150m reach of Squaw Creek. The upper and lower boundaries of each site were marked using GPS, and digital photographs were taken (looking upstream and downstream) at several points along each reach (0m, 50m, 100m, and 150m). Per the sampling protocol, benthic macroinvertebrate samples were collected as targeted riffle composites (each comprised of three 1 ft 2 kick samples) using a 250micron mesh D-framed net. Five replicate samples were collected from each site (one each from 5 randomly selected riffle areas within each 150m reach). Physical habitat parameters (width, depth, substrate composition, cobble embeddedness, bank cover, bank angle, canopy cover, aquatic vegetation, algae, detritus, etc.) were measured at cross-sectional transects located every 10m along the 150m reach. Riparian vegetation, slope, sinuosity, and stream discharge were evaluated for each 150m reach as a whole. In situ water quality (temperature, pH, conductivity, and dissolved oxygen concentration and saturation) was also measured at each site using a YSI model 556 multi-meter. 4.2.2.2 Martis Creek Surveys in the Martis Creek followed the Standard Operating Procedures for Collecting Benthic Macroinvertebrate Samples and Associated Physical and Chemical Data for Ambient Bioassessments in California (SWRCB, 2007). All sites consisted of a 150m reach of stream. Benthic macroinvertebrate samples were collected as both targeted riffle composite (TRC) samples (comprised of eight 1 ft 2 kick samples) and reach-wide benthos/multi-habitat (RWB-MH) samples (comprised of eleven 1 ft 2 kick samples). Both types of samples were collected from each of the six sites. Physical habitat parameters (bankfull and wetted width, depth, substrate composition, cobble embeddedness, algal cover, riparian vegetation, in stream habitat complexity, canopy cover, human influence, bank stability, etc.) were evaluated at a combination of 11 primary and 10 secondary cross- sectional transects located along the 150m reach. Stream gradient, sinuosity, and discharge were also measured for each survey reach. The upper, middle and lower portions of each survey reach were documented with photographs taken in both the upstream and downstream directions, and both ends of each reach were marked using GPS. 4.2.3 Data Analysis and Validation Following the completion of the field work, the data were compiled and entered into electronic data tables then reviewed by a secondary staff member who was also responsible for back-checking any corrections that were required. All field datasheets were then stored and will be kept on file for a minimum of five years following the completion of the project. Bioassessment samples were sent to accredited taxonomic experts for processing, enumeration, and identification. Squaw Creek samples were processed by Jon Lee Consulting; Martis Creek samples were processed by Wayne Fields of Hydrozoology. Both taxonomists identify taxa to the Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan Section 4 · Data Collection and Analysis Methodologies Water Year 2014 Annual Monitoring Report 4-12 genus/species level wherever possible ( i.e., standard Level II effort as defined by the Southwest Association of Freshwater Taxonomists [SAFIT, 2006]). Taxonomic data from each site were randomized and consolidated into a 500-fixed-count taxa list representing that site (per the analytical approach described in the TRWQMP). These data were analyzed and reported at the SAFIT Level II standard taxonomic effort. All biological metric calculations were based on the standardized 500-fixed-count-sample data for each site. The Eastern Sierra Nevada Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) was calculated for all Squaw Creek and Martis Creek sites as described in the TRWQMP (and following Herbst and Sildorff [2004]). For the three Squaw Creek sites, a separate index (the Biological Condition Score or BCS) was also calculated as specified in the TMDL sampling and analysis requirements for Squaw Creek (LRWQCB, 2008a). BCS and IBI scores were calculated and reported for targeted riffle composite samples only because these indices were developed from riffle-only data. In addition, targeted riffle samples were collected at all Squaw and Martis Creek sites, whereas multi-habitat (reachwide benthos) samples were only collected at Martis Creek sites per the established sampling protocols. For bioassessment monitoring, no duplicate samples are collected in the field; however an external QA/QC check for taxonomic and enumeration accuracy is required for 10% of macroinvertebrate samples and all uncertain taxa, with a minimum of one per calendar year. The external QA/QC check is performed by the California Department of Fish and Game’s (CDFG) Aquatic Bioassessment Laboratory. 4.3 Community Level Water Quality Monitoring Two newly established sites (DSC-MC4 and DSC-MC5) were monitored for the first time in WY 2014 by Placer County in the Martis Creek sub-watershed. The Town of Truckee performed limited community level water quality monitoring at 15 sites within the Donner Creek watershed; this monitoring was performed to support the Donner Creek modeling that is described in Section 4.7. Planning and preparation activities for the two Placer County sites including identification and selection of the new sites and development of access agreements with private landowners were conducted during the summer and fall of 2013. 4.3.1 Monitoring Site Descriptions The TRWQMP provided general locations and guidance for selecting the community level discrete sampling sites. Per this guidance, monitoring sites should represent both highly developed areas to monitor impacts of human activities, as well as minimally developed areas to provide baseline data and an understanding of realistic water quality objective goals. Potential sites were evaluated with consideration of safety and access, representativeness, permitting requirements, and ease of installation. The sites were then scored and ranked based on these criteria and recommendations were developed for the final monitoring locations. The selected sites are described below with general explanations on how the water quality data from the site is initially planned to be used. Northstar Drive and Aspen Grove Outfalls (DSC- MC4 and DSC-MC5) – These two monitoring sites are located within the same drainage system on property owned by Northstar Unit 1-B (Aspen Grove Condominiums). The sites are located upstream and downstream of the main condominium development and provide data that represents water quality entering and leaving the property. Samples from Site DSC-MC4 are representative of runoff that has received relatively minimal upstream treatment by sedimentation in drainage inlets with sumps. Samples from DSC-MC5 are representative of runoff that has received additional treatment by Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan Water Year 2014 Annual Monitoring Report Section 4 · Data Collection and Analysis Methodologies 4-13 traveling through a well-vegetated channel with stable riparian floodplain areas which provide opportunity for additional sedimentation, filtration through vegetation and soils and biological removal processes. The drainage areas contributing stormwater runoff to DSC-MC4 and DSC-MC5 are highlighted in Figure 4-6 and include multi-family condominiums, paved roadways, parking lots and minor forested areas. A system of storm drain pipes, drainage inlets and sediment traps convey runoff from the upper watershed to DSC-MC4. This runoff then travels through an open vegetated channel that meanders through a riparian area within the Aspen Grove property and eventually discharges into West Martis Creek. Site DSC-MC5 is located within this channel just upstream of its confluence with West Martis Creek. Table 4-4 presents the key characteristics of the community level monitoring sites including: station ID, locations and jurisdictions, latitude, longitude, elevations and information about the drainage area. Aerial maps showing the sampling point locations and their tributary drainage areas are presented in Figure 4-6. Table 4 -4. Discrete Monitoring Site Characteristics Northstar Drive Outfall Aspen Grove Outfall Station ID DSC-MC4 DSC-MC5 Receiving Water West Martis Creek West Martis Creek County Placer Placer Regional Water Board Lahontan Region 6 Lahontan Region 6 Latitude 39° 16' 39.77" N 39° 16' 49.421" N Longitude 120° 7' 12.40" W 120° 7' 3.93" W Elevation (ft) 6,288 6,172 Roadway Access Northstar Drive Silver Strike Monitoring Location Drainage Channel Drainage Channel Runoff Type Multi -Family Residential Roadway Parking Lot Multi -Family Residential Roadway Parking Lot Approximate Drainage Area (acres) 4.1 11.1 Installation Date January 2014 January 2014 Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan Section 4 · Data Collection and Analysis Methodologies Water Year 2014 Annual Monitoring Report 4-14 Figure 4-6 Discrete Community Water Quality Sampling Placer County Monitoring Locations Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan Water Year 2014 Annual Monitoring Report Section 4 · Data Collection and Analysis Methodologies 4-15 4. 3.2 Field Evaluation Protocols The community level sampling protocols include the use of passive sampling devices at stormwater drainage outfalls or other appropriate locations for the collection of discrete stormwater runoff samples (grab samples) from targeted communities. This water quality monitoring targets stormwater runoff from developed areas generated from events considered to have the highest potential for mobilizing and transporting the pollutants of concern. Examples are runoff events that occur after extended dry periods or that result in substantial increases of stormwater runoff flows at the monitoring locations. The use of passive samplers allows the collection of samples from the same part of the rising hydrograph limb during each event resulting in higher quality comparisons among sites and over time. The monitoring team tracks weather conditions and potential storms that may produce stormwater runoff at the monitoring stations. Events are characterized by their type (snowmelt, winter rain/snow (mixed), and spring, summer or fall rain) and the number of days prior to the event without rainfall or runoff (dry antecedent conditions). The events to be monitored are selected based on the antecedent conditions and the predicted amount of precipitation, or the predicted temperature and amount of snow in the drainage area if snowmelt flows are being targeted. To collect the samples, clean samplers and containers are installed at the monitoring sites prior to the targeted event. Runoff enters the container when the flow reaches a predetermined depth at the sampling point. When the container is full, a floating ball valve seals the bottle. After the event, the passive samplers are carefully examined to ensure the samples were collected as planned and the bottles sealed adequately to prevent contamination. After retrieving the samples, the site is secured and samples are prepared for shipment to the laboratory. 4.3.3 Data Management and Analysis Samples are delivered to the laboratory under chain of custody documentation to track the samples and the requested analyses. Lab analysis is performed in accordance with standardized analytical and QA/QC methods. Lab reports containing the analytical results and QA/QC documentation are then validated prior to entering data into the project database. Each analytical report is thoroughly reviewed and the data evaluated to determine if its data met the data quality objectives described below. Once the data has been validated, it is ready for statistical analyses, evaluation and comparisons. The results are compared across sites and over time to identify potential pollutant sources, determine how community discharges are impacting water quality objectives and if any existing water quality improvements are reducing pollutant discharges. The list of laboratory analytical constituents was developed based on land uses in the upgradient catchment area, the water quality pollutants of concern for the Truckee River and the available funding. Table 4-5 lists the constituents, sample type (sample collection method), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) analytical method, sample bottle type, target reporting limit, volume required for analysis, sample preservation, and maximum holding times. These are also the standard operating procedures for Western Environmental Testing Laboratory (WETLAB). WETLAB was the selected analytical laboratory for community stormwater samples. Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan Section 4 · Data Collection and Analysis Methodologies Water Year 2014 Annual Monitoring Report 4-16 Table 4 -5. Analytical List for Community Level Water Quality Samples Constituent 1 Sample Type Analytical Method Sample Collection Bottle Type (Nalgene Cat No) Target Reporting Limit 2 Volume (mL) Preservation 3 Holding Time TSS Discrete SM 2540D HDPE 5 (1100-1000) 1 mg/L 1000 4°C 7 days Turbidity EPA 180.1 0.1 NTU 50 48 hours Ammonia 4 SM 4500 NH3 D 0.05 mg/l 500 H2SO 4 (added at lab) 28 days TKN EPA 351.2 0.1 mg/L 100 H2SO 4 (added at lab) 28 days NO 2-N4 EPA 300.0 0.01 mg/L 100 4°C 48 hours NO 3-N4 EPA 300.0 0.01 mg/L 100 48 hours Total Nitrogen (calculated) -- 0.12 mg/L -- -- Total Phosphorus SM 4500 -P E 0.01 mg/L 100 28 days Dissolved Phosphorus 4 SM 4500 -P E 0.01 mg/L 100 28 days Dissolved Ortho - Phosphate 4 SM 4500-P E 0.01 mg/L 100 48 hours 1 TSS = total suspended solids; NO 3-N = nitrate as nitrogen; NO 2-N = nitrite as nitrogen; TKN – total Kjeldahl nitrogen. 2 µg/L = micrograms per liter; mg/L = milligrams per liter; NTU = nephelometric turbidity units. 3 H2SO 4 = Sulfuric acid, °C = Celsius 4 Filtered immediately with a 0.45 micron nylon filter for the dissolved portions of the assay 5 HDPE = High-density polyethylene 4.4 Tributary Level Water Quality Sampling Tributary level water quality data collection and analysis activities were performed at six sites along multiple branches of Martis Creek within Placer County during WY 2014. This was the fourth year of data collection at these sites. 4.4.1 Monitoring Site Descriptions The Martis Creek tributary sampling locations are sited to provide water quality information on the receiving waters in the Martis Creek watershed. The monitoring sites are located in each of the major branches of Martis Creek with the goal of identifying potential pollutant source areas and identifying and tracking water quality trends. The upstream and downstream configuration of some of these sampling locations will also be helpful to characterize any water quality changes that occur as flow travels through the Martis Valley floodplain and meadow system. Two of the sites (DST-MC4 and DST- MC5) were moved slightly prior to WY 2014. DST- MC4 was moved upstream above the location where West Martis Creek splits as it enters the Martis Valley lowlands. DST-MC5 was moved to a location downstream in the main stem of Martis Creek due to inundation from of a beaver pond being created in the original location. Water quality data collected from the new DST-MC4 and DST-MC5 locations are considered to be comparable to data collected at the previous locations and can reasonable be combined into a single water quality data set for these stations. The key characteristics of the Martis Creek tributary monitoring locations are presented in Table 4-6 and the locations are shown in Figure 4-7. Figure 4-7 also includes the location of the Martis Creek stream gaging stations which are discussed below in Section 4.5. Photographs of each of the tributary monitoring sites are presented in Figure 4-8. Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan Water Year 2014 Annual Monitoring Report Section 4 · Data Collection and Analysis Methodologies 4-17 Table 4 -6. Tributary Level Discrete Monitoring Site Characteristics Water Body Martis Creek Main Stem Outfall East Martis Creek Middle Martis Creek West Martis Creek Martis Creek Main Stem Unnamed Martis Tributary Station ID DST-MC1 DST-MC2 DST-MC3 DST-MC4 DST-MC5 DST-MC6 Location Description Mouth of creek at Martis Creek Lake Downstream of concrete bridge Upstream of confluence with main stem Downstream of Northstar Golf Course Downstream of Lahontan and Martis Camp Downstream of Martis Ck Rd. Latitude 1 N 39° 18' 53.48" N 39° 18' 32.63" N 39° 18' 6.67" N 39° 17' 50.41" N 39° 18' 1.43" N 39° 18' 30.39" Longitude 1 W 120° 7' 1.54" W 120° 6' 51.70" W 120° 6' 58.16" W 120° 7' 6.53" W 120° 7' 43.8" W 120° 8' 3.71" Elevation (ft) 5,830 5,840 5,845 5,860 5,835 5,850 Major land use descriptions in tributary watershed Ski Area; Commercial; Single and Multi-Family Residential; Primary and Secondary Roadway; Forested Uplands; Golf Courses; Unpaved Roads and Trails Forested Uplands; Unpaved Roads and Trails Primary Roadway; Forested Uplands; Unpaved Roads and Trails Ski Area; Commercial; Single and Multi-Family Residential; Secondary Roadway; Forested Uplands; Golf Course; Unpaved Roads and Trails Ski Area; Single Family Residential; Secondary Roadway; Forested Uplands; Golf Courses; Unpaved Roads and Trails Airport; Commercial; Secondary Roadway; Drainage Area Size (ac) 21,900 4,550 3,000 3,200 8,800 200 1 Coordinate System: NAD 1983 State Plane California II FIPS 0402 Feet Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan Section 4 · Data Collection and Analysis Methodologies Water Year 2014 Annual Monitoring Report 4-18 Figure 4-7 Discrete Tributary Water Quality Sampling, Stream Gaging, and Near-Continuous Turbidity Monitoring Locations Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan Water Year 2014 Annual Monitoring Report Section 4 · Data Collection and Analysis Methodologies 4-19 FIGURE 4-8a. DST-MC1 monitoring location on Martis Creek near Martis Creek Lake. FIGURE 4-8b. DST-MC2 monitoring location on East Martis Creek. FIGURE 4-8c. Middle Martis Creek confluence. DST-MC3 monitoring location is just upstream. FIGURE 4-8d. DST-MC4 monitoring location on West Martis Creek. FIGURE 4-8e. DST-MC5 monitoring location is on Martis Creek just downstream of its confluence with an unnamed tributary. FIGURE 4-8f. DST-MC6 monitoring location on unnamed tributary near Martis Creek Road. Figure 4-8 Tributary Level Discrete Monitoring Sites DST-MC3 Monitoring Location Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan Section 4 · Data Collection and Analysis Methodologies Water Year 2014 Annual Monitoring Report 4-20 4.4.2 Field Evaluation Protocols The TRWQMP methodology for tributary level discrete sampling has been adapted for all tributary level sampling events. The sampling method follows USGS equal width increment (EWI) protocols for collecting depth-integrated, discharge-weighted samples from targeted flow conditions. To collect the samples, a transect is established across the stream channel and the wetted width is divided into a series of equally spaced increments. Sub-samples are collected at the center of each increment using a depth-integrated suspended sediment sampler that is lowered and raised through the water column at a constant rate. The subsample volumes produced are proportional to the amount of flow occurring in each increment and are composited into a single composite sample to be submitted to the lab. Similar to the community level sampling, these in-stream water quality measurements focus on events when high pollutant concentrations and/or loads are expected to be present within surface waters (i.e., the worst-case scenarios). Sampling times target the rising limb of the event hydrograph and are coordinated across the project area to allow for the most direct comparisons between tributary stations. A range of runoff event types and magnitudes are typically sampled during the monitoring season. Precipitation data is also reviewed and compared to stream discharge where available to help define the runoff response times used to guide the timing of the tributary water quality sampling. 4.4.3 Data Management and Analysis The data management and analysis procedures for the community and tributary level water quality monitoring are similar. Table 4-7 lists the constituents, sample type, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) analytical method, sample bottle type, target detection limit, volume required for analysis, sample preservation requirements, and maximum holding times for each constituent. Table 4 -7. Analytical List for Tributary Level Water Quality Samples Constituent1 Sample Type Analytical Method Sample Collection Bottle Type Detection Limit2 Volume (mL) Preservation3 Holding Time to Lab TSS Depth integrated, discharge weighted SM 2540D HDPE 5 1 mg/L A total volume of 1000 mL is sufficient for all analysis 4°C 7 days Turbidity EPA 180.1 0.1 NTU 4°C 48 hours Ammonia SM 4500 NH3 D 50 µg/L 4°C 28 days NO 3-N, NO 2-N4 EPA 300.0 10 µg/L 4°C 48 hours TKN EPA 351.2 100 µg/L 4°C & H 2SO 4 (added at lab) 28 days Total Nitrogen (calculated) -- 120 µg/L -- Total Phosphorus SM 4500 - P E 10 µg/L 4°C & H 2SO 4 (added at lab) 28 days Dissolved Phosphorus 4 SM 4500 - P E 10 µg/L 4°C & H 2SO 4 (added at lab) 28 days Dissolved Ortho - Phosphate 4 SM 4500 - P E 10 µg/L 4°C 48 hours 1 TSS = total suspended solids; NO 3-N = nitrate as nitrogen; NO 2-N = nitrite as nitrogen; TKN – total Kjeldahl nitrogen. 2 µg/L = micrograms per liter; mg/L = milligrams per liter; NTU = nephelometric turbidity units. 3 H2SO 4 = Sulfuric acid, °C = Celsius 4 Filtered immediately with a 0.45 micron nylon filter for the dissolved portions of the assay 5 HDPE = High-density polyethylene Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan Water Year 2014 Annual Monitoring Report Section 4 · Data Collection and Analysis Methodologies 4-21 4.5 Martis Valley Discharge Monitoring A stream gaging station was installed in the fall of 2010 to measure discharge in the main stem of Martis Creek below the confluences with Middle and West Martis Creek (GS-MC1). Due to interferences from a beaver dam, this station was abandoned in February of 2014 and a new station (GS-MC2) was established at the mouth of Maris Creek just upstream of the discharge point to Martis Creek Reservoir. In the fall of 2012, two additional stream gaging stations were installed; one in West Martis Creek as a component of a new near-continuous turbidity monitoring station (Turb-MC1) and co-located with the discrete tributary sampling station (DST-MC4), and the other in the main stem of Martis Creek above the confluences with Middle and West Martis Creek, as a component of a second new turbidity station (Turb-MC2) and co-located with the discrete tributary sampling station (DST-MC5). At the beginning of WY 2014, these two stations were relocated slightly to improve data quality by reducing bypassed flows, at Turb-MC1, and avoiding beaver dam interference, at Turb-MC2. Stream discharge at Turb-MC1 now includes flows that were bypasses at the original location so data from the new location will differ and should not be combined with discharge data from previous years. Discharge data from Turb-MC2, is similar to that collected at the previous location and can reasonably be combined with previous data to provide a longer continuous record of discharge. 4.5.1 Monitoring Site Description The locations of the Martis Valley stream gaging stations are shown in Figure 4-7. The lower Martis Creek gaging station (GS-MC2) is co-located with tributary level water quality monitoring station DST- MC1 at the mouth of Martis Creek near Martis Creek Reservoir. The West Martis Creek gaging station is located adjacent to the Northstar golf course boundary and is part of the near-continuous turbidity site TURB-MC1. The upper Martis Creek gaging station is located downstream of the Lahontan and Martis Camp developments and is part of the near-continuous turbidity site TURB-MC2. 4.5.2 Installation and Operation Installation activities performed in 2010, 2012 and 2014 included surveying channel cross-sections and longitudinal profile, establishment of a local benchmark, and installation of a staff gage and pressure transducer. Type A staff plates were installed in the stream channel to allow visual depth measurements by field personnel from the bank and confirmation of automated stage measurements by the pressure transducers. A vented In-Situ Level Troll 500 pressure transducer was installed at site GS-MC2 and Instrumentation Northwest, Inc. PS9805 pressure transducers with Campbell Scientific dataloggers were installed at sites TURB-MC1 and TURB-MC2. The pressure transducers were programmed to measure and log 15-minute average stage data at the measurement locations. The pressure transducers are securely mounted to the same posts as the staff gages with the cable installed in conduit leading to an accessible location on the bank. The conduits are perforated along the bottom 2 feet and anchored to the bank by stakes and rocks. Photographs of the three gaging stations are provided in Figure 4-9. Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan Section 4 · Data Collection and Analysis Methodologies Water Year 2014 Annual Monitoring Report 4-22 FIGURE 4-9a. GS-MC2 monitoring location on lower Martis Creek. FIGURE 4-9b. TURB-MC1 monitoring location on West Martis Creek. FIGURE 4-9c. TURB-MC2 monitoring location on Upper Martis Creek. Figure 4-9 Staff Gages at the Martis Valley Gaging Stations Prior to installation, pressure transducers were factory calibrated and tested. Sensor calibration continued during operation by recording water levels at the time of each visit as well as the height of any observed high-water marks deposited since the last visit. These measurements were compared and the electronic record was adjusted, as necessary. Field staff made routine visits to each gaging station during WY 2014. During periods of rain or peak snowmelt, site visits were made more frequently. Activities during site visits consisted of manual flow measurements and stage observations, observation of recent high-water marks (if visible), data downloads, probe inspections, and datalogger battery and desiccant replacement, as necessary. In the event that any component was malfunctioning (i.e., pressure transducer), it was repaired or replaced as soon as possible. Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan Water Year 2014 Annual Monitoring Report Section 4 · Data Collection and Analysis Methodologies 4-23 4.5.3 Development of Stage to Discharge Rating Curves Stage to discharge rating curves were developed during WY 2014. To develop the rating curves, velocity measurements were obtained using a Swoffer 2100 current velocity meter at various stream stages. Velocity measurements were collected using the 0.6 depth methodology outlined in the USGS Measurement and Computation of Streamflow Manual (USGS, 1982). Velocity measurements were collected at equal intervals along a transect to account for varying flow conditions across the stream channel. Flow was then calculated for each interval by multiplying the measured velocity by the cross- sectional area of that interval. The summation of all incremental flow rates was used to obtain the stream discharge at the time the measurements were taken. Rating curves were developed using the stage and discharge data, and were calibrated based on the quality and timing of the field measurements. These relationships are expressed as mathematical formulas which are used to calculate continuous records of discharge using the logged and calibrated stage data from the pressure transducers at each site. During rating curve development, an effort was made to measure discharge at a range of stages including upper and lower extremes. This limits extrapolation to the range of stages recorded by the instrument and stages that were too high to safely measure discharge. 4.5.4 Data Management and Analysis After downloading the stage data from the pressure transducer, it is reviewed for any anomalies or data gaps and then imported into a spreadsheet to apply calibrations, calculate a record of stage, compute discharge, and apply stage shifts to account for natural channel scour or fill. Similarly, ice can commonly affect stage. When ice forms, the stream cross-section generally becomes constricted, causing backwater, which results in a higher stage than would exist during ice-free periods under the same discharge conditions. Because the amount of backwater will vary significantly more complex procedures involving meteorological and hydrological data from other stations in the area are required to estimate discharge at ice-affected stations (USGS, 1996). These procedures are applied during review of data. Periods of estimated discharge for ice-affected stations are indicated where applied. Once a preliminary record of discharge is completed, daily, monthly and annual hydrologic metrics are computed. These include daily maximum, mean, and minimum discharges (cubic feet per second, cfs), monthly and annual maximum, mean, and minimum discharge (cfs), total-annual discharge volume (cfs-days; acre-feet), and annual peak instantaneous- discharge (cfs). 4.6 Near-Continuous Turbidity Monitoring Near-continuous turbidity monitoring stations were installed in the Truckee River in January, 2013 and the Martis Creek watershed in September, 2012. The Martis Creek sites were relocated during WY 2014, as described above in Section 4.5, to capture data more representative of the creek being monitored. These monitoring sites provide a near-continuous record of stream turbidity (measured in nephelometric turbidity units or NTUs). Turbidity is a common proxy for suspended-sediment concentration (measured in milligrams per Liter; mg/L) and can be converted to suspended-sediment loads through application of the discharge record. This is being conducted in an effort to understand suspended sediment loading from tributaries in the Middle Truckee River Basin and along the Truckee River Corridor as outlined in the TRWQMP and for evaluation of the Middle Truckee River TMDL for Sediment. Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan Section 4 · Data Collection and Analysis Methodologies Water Year 2014 Annual Monitoring Report 4-24 Station operations during WY 2014 included the collection of data for the development of turbidity (NTU) to SSC rating curves at each site. This was the second year of data collection at these sites. 4.6.1 Monitoring Site Description The locations of the near-continuous turbidity stations are shown in Figures 4-7 and 4-10. Two stations were installed in the Truckee River; site TURB-MS3 is co-located with a United States Geological Survey (USGS) discharge gage in the Truckee River near Truckee (USGS ID: 10338000), and site TURB-TT1 is co-located downstream with a USGS discharge gage in the Truckee River at Boca Bridge (USGS ID: 10344505). Two additional near-continuous turbidity monitoring stations were installed in the Martis Creek watershed. One is located within West Martis Creek adjacent to the Northstar Golf Course property boundary and is identified as site TURB-MC1. The other station is located in upper Martis Creek downstream of the Lahontan and Martis Camp developments (upstream of the confluence with West Martis Creek) and is identified as site TURB-MC2. As described above, Sites TURB-MC1 and TURB-MC2 are co-located with the tributary level monitoring sites DST-MC4 and DST-MC5, respectively. Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan Water Year 2014 Annual Monitoring Report Section 4 · Data Collection and Analysis Methodologies 4-25 Figure 4-10 Near-Continuous Turbidity Monitoring Locations Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan Section 4 · Data Collection and Analysis Methodologies Water Year 2014 Annual Monitoring Report 4-26 4. 6.2 Installation and Operation Turbidity is measured using Optical Back-Scatter (OBS 3+ and OBS 500) submersible turbidity probes with a range of up to 4,000 nephelometric turbidity units (NTUs). The OBS 500 has a factory installed wiper mechanism to keep the sensor clear of fouling from biological activity in Martis Creek. The turbidity probes are connected to Campbell Scientific dataloggers which operate on a solar-powered 12-volt battery contained within a locked, water-resistant and sealed, hard-case enclosure. Turbidity sensors were either factory calibrated or calibrated prior to installation using laboratory standards covering the range of anticipated turbidity levels. Data are collected every 15-minutes together with measurements of stream stage. The stations are visited weekly and the probes are inspected and cleaned of algae, ice or debris. The dataloggers are downloaded monthly. 4.6.3 Fluvial Sediment Measurements Suspended sediment samples are collected at the turbidity stations to provide a means for developing a turbidity:suspended-sediment concentration correlation and converted to suspended sediment loads using the near-continuous record of discharge. Suspended-sediment consists primarily of fine sand, silt, and clay supported by turbulence within the water column and transported at a rate approaching the mean velocity of flow. Bedload sediment, another component of the total sediment load defined as material which rolls along the streambed, is not sampled or analyzed for this study. 4.6.3.1 Suspended-Sediment Sampling Equipment Suspended sediment samples are collected using standard equipment and methods adopted by the Federal Interagency Sedimentation Project (FISP) to make measurements of suspended-sediment transport. This equipment includes a hand-held DH-48 suspended-sediment sampler with a 1/4-inch nozzle for use when flows were wadeable, and a bridge board with a D-95 suspended-sediment sampler for sampling high (unwadeable) flows from the Boca Reservoir bridge. 4.6.3.2 Suspended-Sediment Sampling and Analysis Suspended-sediment samples were collected at channel locations exhibiting the most ideal characteristics (i.e., relatively straight and uniform) for the flow event sampled, but always in close proximity to the gaging station. The sampling method follows USGS equal width increment (EWI) protocols for collecting depth-integrated, discharge-weighted samples from targeted flow conditions. To collect the samples, a transect is established across the stream channel and the wetted width is divided into a series of equally spaced increments. Sub-samples are collected at the center of each increment using a depth-integrated suspended sediment sampler that is lowered and raised through the water column at a constant rate. The subsample volumes produced are proportional to the amount of flow occurring in each increment and are composited into a single composite sample to be submitted to the lab. Following this protocol avoids the confounding effects of significant changes in sediment transport rates in different locations in the channel and in different discharges. Each sample is transferred to a clean 500 milliliter (mL) or 1,000 mL high-density polyethylene (HDPE) bottle and transported to WETLAB in Sparks, Nevada for analysis of total suspended solids (TSS) using EPA method 160.2 (gravimetric method). McGraw and others (2001) evaluated the relationship between TSS and suspended-sediment concentration (SSC) at monitoring sites in the Middle Truckee River watershed, and found a nearly one-to-one relationship between the two parameters, suggesting that both TSS and SSC are reliable for calculating suspended sediment loads. For the remainder of this report, the term SSC is used when Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan Water Year 2014 Annual Monitoring Report Section 4 · Data Collection and Analysis Methodologies 4-27 referring to suspended-sediment concentrations of samples collected and analyzed for TSS for this study. 4.6.4 Data Management and Analysis This section describes the two methods used in this study to calculate annual records of suspended- sediment load: 1) using site-specific, discharge-to-suspended-sediment load relationships, herein referred to as the “discharge-based method”; and 2) using the relationship between the turbidity and SSC, herein referred to as the “turbidity-based method.” Because turbidity can fluctuate independent of discharge variations, near-continuous turbidity monitoring can help identify discrete events not related to rainfall or fluctuations in discharge, such as bank failures or illegal discharges. Based on calculations of suspended-sediment loads from both methods, results are presented as daily and annual loads (i.e., tons per day or tons) and compared. In an effort to make comparisons between tributaries of different contributing watershed areas, results are normalized by watershed area or presented as suspended-sediment yields (i.e., tons per square mile). 4.6.4.1 Discharge-Based Method for Calculating Suspended-Sediment Load To calculate suspended-sediment loads using the discharge-based method, suspended-sediment samples collected in the field are correlated with instantaneous discharge at the time of sampling, either from concurrent manual measurements or from the near-continuous record. Samples are analyzed at the laboratory for SSC, then the results are converted to suspended-sediment loads by multiplying the concentration (mg/L) by the instantaneous discharge (cfs) and applying a factor of 0.0027 to convert the units into tons/day. This approach allows suspended-sediment loading data to be plotted against instantaneous discharge data to develop a relationship using best-fit, empirical equations (typically a power function). The resulting relationship is then applied to the (15-minute) record of discharge to compute a 15-minute record of suspended-sediment load. The error associated with discharge-based suspended-sediment rating curves is generally assumed to have an inherent uncertainty of at least 25 to 50 percent (Walling, 1977, MacDonald and others, 1991). Significant scatter in rates of suspended sediment loads can produce results differing by an order of magnitude at any given discharge. In order to address this variation and error in sediment load computations, potential temporal patterns in the data were evaluated. Data were separated by event type (e.g., snowmelt runoff, rain-on-snow, thunderstorm, or first flush) and position on the storm hydrograph (e.g., rising limb vs. falling limb). Where differences were observed, separate relationships (equations) were developed, and separate power functions were applied to the record. Since ongoing sampling efforts may help define and extend the existing rating curves and improve their accuracy, the data presented in this report should be considered provisional and subject to revision when additional data become available. 4.6.4.2 Turbidity-Based Method for Calculating Suspended-Sediment Load Measurement of instantaneous turbidity at the time of suspended-sediment sample collection typically results in a definable relationship that can be applied to the 15-minute record of turbidity to compute a 15-minute record of SSC. The continuous record of turbidity can then be converted into a 15-minute record of suspended-sediment concentration (mg/L per 15 min.) and, through application of the discharge record, converted into a daily suspended-sediment load (tons/day). Because turbidity can fluctuate independent of discharge variations, continuous turbidity monitoring can help identify discrete events not related to rainfall or snowmelt runoff, such as bank failures or dam releases, and Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan Section 4 · Data Collection and Analysis Methodologies Water Year 2014 Annual Monitoring Report 4-28 has been found to explain at least 80 percent of the temporal variation in suspended sediment concentration (MacDonald and others, 1991). There are several factors that can complicate collection and interpretation of continuous-logging turbidity data: a) algal growth on the optical sensor; b) ice or debris collecting on the probe; c) sedimentation of the probe; and/or d) probe exposure above the water column (unsubmerged) due to extreme low-flows. To reduce the chances of these conditions and to minimize instrument error, field teams made frequent site visits to evaluate site conditions and instrument integrity. If data appeared to be erroneous in any way, individual data points were manually adjusted based on observations in the field. 4.7 Donner Creek Outfall Modeling Hydrologic and water quality modeling was conducted during WY 2014 in response to preliminary findings of elevated sediment loads in Donner Creek as described in the WY 2013 Annual Report. The overall goal of these additional activities was to identify and prioritize the major sub-basins draining to Donner Creek with respect to their suspended sediment contributions. The data analysis and monitoring for this task included: Development of a hydrologic and water quality model for the portion of Donner Creek within the Town boundary primarily between its confluences with Cold Stream Creek and the Truckee River. Collection of field turbidity data and qualitative observations of flow characteristics to validate the model. For the portions of the Town corridor that drain to Donner Creek, the major drainage catchments were delineated, typical annual discharge volumes were determined, and suspended sediment loading was estimated using typical TSS concentrations associated with the existing land uses. Extensive sediment related monitoring has been conducted in the Lake Tahoe basin to support the development and implementation of the Tahoe TMDL. This research has produced information on pollutant types and concentrations that can be expected from various land uses in the region and it is considered to be valid for the Truckee area due to it similarities in climate and activities taking place within the watersheds. This information is provided in the Lake Tahoe Total Maximum Daily Load Technical Report (LRWQCB and NDEP, 2010). Available topographic data, aerial imagery, storm drain mapping, and information collected during site visits were utilized to delineate the major drainage catchments using GIS software. Long-term (30-year) precipitation data available from the Truckee Ranger Station precipitation gage (Site ID COOP:049043), which is operated by the USGS, was used to develop and run the long-term, continuous simulation hydrologic model. The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Storm Water Management Model (SWMM) version 5.1 was used for the modeling work. The model calculates 30- year discharge volumes and TSS loads at each modeled outfall. The results are summarized in a table and presented visually on a map to provide spatial comparisons of suspended sediment loads. To validate the model results, turbidity grab samples were collected at modeled outfalls during three separate events when discharge was occurring. All samples were analyzed for turbidity using a portable, desktop turbidimeter. The grab sampling consisted of the following procedure: Rinse a pre-cleaned glass vial in the stormwater stream to be sampled. Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan Water Year 2014 Annual Monitoring Report Section 4 · Data Collection and Analysis Methodologies 4-29 Collect a single grab sample from the center of the flow stream in a location where flows are well mixed. Avoid sampling from the flow surface where floatable solids may exist. Secure the lid onto the glass vial and remove excess moisture that accumulated on the outside of the vial. Use a soft cloth that will not scratch the vial. Analyze the sample using the turbidimeter and record the result. Discard the sample and rinse vial with deionized water. Repeat steps 1 through 5 to obtain a duplicate result. Record qualitative observations of the stormwater discharge including approximate flow rate, color, odor, sheen, presence of foam, etc. Turbidity and field observation results were reviewed and compared to the predicted conditions produced by the model to verify accuracy. Calibration adjustments were then made to the model as appropriate to more accurately reflect the observed and measured field conditions. This consisted of multiplying the total loads produced by the model by factors that reflect treatment provided by upstream BMPs. 4.8 Data Quality Objectives Data quality objectives (DQOs) for the program were developed to establish acceptable measures of quality for monitoring data and increase its defensibility. The DQOs developed for this project include specifications for field sampling and analytical procedures and performance criteria for laboratory analytical work. The DQOs are applied to all data collection activities and analyses conducted under the implementation of the TRWQMP. For water quality sampling activities, field precision was determined through the collection of field triplicates and the calculation of the average percent error. Laboratory accuracy was evaluated by reviewing Matrix Spike/Matrix Spike Duplicate (MS/MSD) and Laboratory Control Spike (LCS) recoveries. Laboratory precision was evaluated by reviewing MSD and laboratory sample duplicate relative percent differences (RPDs). Field QA/QC samples were analyzed for the same analytical suite as the water quality samples collected at the respective site. Laboratory performance control limit criteria for precision and accuracy is provided in the TRWQMP and presented below in Table 4-8. Table 4 -8. Control Limits for Precision and Accuracy for Water Samples Constituent1 Analytical Method Accuracy Precision Recovery TSS SM 2540D 70 -130% Replicates within +/- 10% 70-130% Turbidity EPA 180.1 Ammonia SM 4500 NH3 D Standard Reference Materials (SRM, CRM) within 95% of CI stated by provider of material. Laboratory control sample; Blind field triplicate; Replicates within +/- 20% Matrix spike 80-120 % or control limits +/- 3 standard deviations based on actual lab data. NO 3-N, NO 2-N EPA 300.0 TKN EPA 351.2 Total Phosphorous SM 4500 -PE Dissolved Phosphorous SM 4500 -PE Dissolved Orthophosphate SM 4500-PE 1 TSS = total suspended solids; NO 3-N = nitrate as nitrogen; NO 2-N = nitrite as nitrogen; TKN – total Kjeldahl nitrogen. Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan Section 4 · Data Collection and Analysis Methodologies Water Year 2014 Annual Monitoring Report 4-30 4.9 Statistical Analyses Statistical testing is conducted to further characterize the data sets and determine whether various groups of data exhibit significant differences or trends. In cases where results are inconclusive, power analyses can be conducted to estimate the sample size (number of total measurements) required to discern a statistical difference. Statistical testing was performed to compare data from the community level and tributary level water quality monitoring assessment types. This section describes the statistical methodology that was applied for the standard water quality results (TSS, turbidity, total phosphorus, and total nitrogen). Statistical analyses were not conducted on discharge and suspended- sediment relationships; these data were evaluated independently and a best “eye-fit” approach was applied. To compare water quality results, a test was performed of the statistical hypotheses that the two data groups exhibit significant differences. Basic statistics (mean, standard deviation, coefficient of variation, median) were calculated for each group included in a given test. Additional statistical analyses included: Shapiro-Wilk and Lilliefors Normality Tests, including probability plots, to determine the data distribution; t-Tests to compare two data sets or to compare a data set to a regulatory standard; Power Analysis to determine whether additional samples are needed to discern a statistically significant difference in two data sets, Mann-Kendall Trend Tests to determine whether concentrations are significantly increasing or decreasing over time. A statistical spreadsheet workbook was developed for these analyses and is provided, along with the relevant output files, in Appendix A. 4.9.1 Normality Tests Normality tests were conducted to formally test whether the grouped data sets are normally distributed. Several different types of normality test methods are available. For this study, the method known as the Lilliefors test was used primarily. The Lilliefors test is evaluated by examining a probability value, known as a p-value, which indicates the probability of obtaining the particular Lilliefors statistic given that the data represent random samples from a normally distributed population. The Lilliefors normality test results are used to confirm the results derived from the graphical displays (box plots and parallel probability plots). In addition to the Lilliefors test, results from another normality test method, known as the Shapiro-Wilk method, were also examined. Generally, the Shapiro-Wilk method tends to be more sensitive to a few extreme values (possible outliers) than the Lilliefors method. Thus, if a data set passed the Lilliefors test but did not pass the Shapiro-Wilk test, this indicated that the data set contained extreme values but is otherwise normally distributed. This served as a flag to further evaluate whether the extreme values are statistical outliers. 4.9.2 t-Tests Data comparison t-tests were conducted to test the null hypothesis that the mean difference (Delta) is equal to zero against the alternative that it is either less than or greater than zero, i.e., a two-sided test. Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan Water Year 2014 Annual Monitoring Report Section 4 · Data Collection and Analysis Methodologies 4-31 To account for non-detects or left-censored data, the mean differences and their standard deviations are calculated on paired difference intervals using the maximum likelihood estimation (MLE) method. From the mean and standard deviation, a t-statistic and a critical t-value are determined. The critical t- value is determined from the corresponding value of the noncentral t-distribution using the effect size (mean divided by the standard deviation) as the noncentrality parameter. From the t-statistic and effect size, a p-value is calculated, which is compared to a critical value (α) of 0.05, i.e., a p-value less than or equal to 0.05 is indicative of a significant difference at the 95 percent confidence level. From the p-value, the power of the test is also calculated to allow subsequent estimation of the sample size (number of additional data measurements) that will be required to obtain a significant difference given the current mean and standard deviation. For sample size estimation purposes, a critical power of 0.80 is assumed. The t-test procedure is conducted on the original untransformed data (Delta), the natural log transformed data (LnDelta), and the ranked data (RkDelta). The appropriate results used to evaluate the particular data set are based on the normality test results. For example, if the differences are determined to be normally distributed, then the data t-test results conducted on the untransformed data are used. The comparison test conducted on the ranked data is essentially a censored data equivalent of the nonparametric Wilcoxon rank test. 4.9.3 Power Analysis The power analysis was performed for those data groups exhibiting a difference that was not declared statistically significant (i.e. the p-value was greater than 0.05). A power analysis was conducted in order to estimate the sample size (amount of additional data) required to establish a statistically significant difference for the comparison tests, given the assumption that group means and standard deviations, and distributional shapes, would remain the same (at current values) following subsequent collection of the additional data. For power analysis purposes, a Type II error rate (ß) of 0.20 was used, i.e., power (1- ß) = 0.80. Basically, the amount of additional data required was determined by incrementing the number of samples in each group until a power of 0.80 was attained. 4.9.4 Trend Analysis Trends in analytical concentrations over time were evaluated visually using time-series plots and formally using the Mann-Kendall test method. The Mann-Kendall test is a nonparametric method that looks at each data point in chronological order and compares the point to all the previous data, noting if the data point has increased or decreased. The test counts the number of increases and decreases. A p-value is calculated which is then compared to critical value (α) of 0.1, i.e., a p-value less than or equal to 0.1 is indicative of a significant trend at the 90 percent confidence level. If the p-value was greater than 0.1 but less than 0.2, the observed trend was acknowledged to be either “Slightly Increasing” or “Slightly Decreasing.” 4.10 Monitoring Modifications The methodologies presented in Section 4 were developed using guidance provided in the TRWQMP, and are consistent with the protocols and methods described in the Sampling and Analysis Plans prepared for Placer County and the Town of Truckee. WY 2014 modifications to the monitoring approaches are documented in the SAPs and summarized below: Community Level Water Quality Sampling – Two sites (DSC-MC4 and DSC-MC5) were monitored by Placer County in the Martis Creek sub-watershed. WY 2014 was the first year that Placer County monitored these two sites. The Town of Truckee performed limited community Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan Section 4 · Data Collection and Analysis Methodologies Water Year 2014 Annual Monitoring Report 4-32 level water quality monitoring at 15 sites within the Donner Creek watershed to support the Donner Creek outfall modeling that was performed during WY 2014. Tributary Level Water Quality Sampling – Two of the sites (DST-MC4 and DST-MC5) were moved slightly prior to WY 2014. DST- MC4 was moved upstream above the location where West Martis Creek splits as it enters the Martis Valley lowlands. DST-MC5 was moved to a location downstream in the main stem of Martis Creek due to the presence of a beaver pond being created in the original location. Water quality data collected from the new DST-MC4 and DST-MC5 locations are considered to be comparable to data collected at the previous locations and can reasonable be combined into a single water quality data set for these stations. Stream Gaging Stations – The three stream gaging stations were moved during WY 2014. The station on the main stem below west and middle Martis was move to the confluence of the main stem below East Martis Creek due to a beaver pond being created in the original location. The West Martis creek station was moved upstream above where the channel splits in the Martis Valley lowlands. The second main stem station was moved downstream, but still above the Middle and West confluence, below a beaver pond that was created in the original location. Velocity measurements were continued at these sites during WY 2014 to support the development of a rating curve. Stream discharge at DST-MC4 now includes flows that were previously bypassed at the original location so data from the new location will differ and should not be combined with discharge data from previous years. Discharge data from DST-MC5 is similar to that collected at the previous location and can reasonably be combined with previous data to provide a longer continuous record of discharge. Near-Continuous Turbidity Monitoring – The Martis Creek turbidity monitoring stations were moved to the same location as the tributary and stream gaging stations prior to WY 2014. Additionally, new turbidity probes were installed at the beginning of WY 2014 to replace the poorly functioning probes that were used during WY 2013. For this reason the WY 2014 turbidity data are considered to be of much higher quality than the WY 2013 data. Donner Creek Outfall Modeling – Guidance for this assessment was not provided in the TRWQMP. This assessment and its implementation methodology was developed as an adaptive management strategy to identify which developed sub-basins contribute the greatest suspended sediment loads to Donner Creek. 5-1 Section 5 Water Year 2014 Monitoring Results This section presents the results of TRWQMP implementation activities conducted during WY 2014 as described in Section 4. Where appropriate, results are combined with previous data to improve representativeness and evaluate for trends if possible. 5.1 Rapid Assessment Methodology This section presents the results of the WY 2014 RAM surveys and discusses differences observed from the WY 2010 and WY 2012 results. The 2014 RAM surveys were conducted in the summer during periods of unusually low flow due to the drought conditions throughout the project area and low winter snowpack. The complete RAM results tables and the original field data forms are provided in Appendix B. The RAM results were also incorporated into the project database and include the name of the stream interval, reach ID, observation dates, discharge rate at the Tahoe City dam, the percentage of particle measurements less than 2mm in diameter, the average percent cobble embeddedness, and median particle diameter (D50) calculated for each reach. Combined average values for the entire surveyed stream segment are also provided. A summary of the RAM results for WY 2010, 2012, and WY 2014 is presented in Figures 5-1 and 5-2 which illustrate the percentage of reaches falling into each fine sediment category in each stream surveyed. The results indicate that Martis Creek has the least amount of fine sediment channel substrate during WY 2014 with over 70 percent of the surveyed reaches falling into the 0 – 10 percent range and the remainder falling in the 11-20 percent ranges. On average, 6 percent of the Martis Creek channel bottom was covered in particles less than 2mm. The channel substrate in Bear Creek, Squaw Creek and East Martis Creek consists of less than 20 percent fine sediment. West Martis Creek contained the largest percentage of fine sediment substrate with a value of 23 percent. West Martis Creek was the only monitored stream to contain reaches with over 30 percent fine sediment substrate. The WY 2014 RAM results were compared to previous years to evaluate for trends that may be occurring or other observed year to year differences. Figure 5-3 graphically illustrates the changes over time in the average percentage of fine sediment substrate for each stream. Table 5-1 presents the total number of reaches where increases or decreases in fine sediment substrate were observed and the average percent change for each stream. The comparisons to 2010 results should be qualified due to the increased number of measurements that were collected in 2012 and 2014 (11 transects per reach in 2012 and 2014 compared to 6 transects per reach in 2010). In addition, the accuracy of the RAM is limited and small differences in fine sediment substrate observed over time may not be a real indication of changing stream conditions. Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan Section 5 · Water Year 2014 Monitoring Results Water Year 2014 Annual Monitoring Report 5-2 Figure 5-1 Summary of Squaw Creek and Bear Creek RAM Results Figure 5-2 Summary of Martis Creek RAM Results 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Squaw Creek 2010 Squaw Creek 2012 Squaw Creek 2014 Bear Creek 2010 Bear Creek 2012 Bear Creek 2014 40% 64% 73% 55% 80% 20% 60% 36% 18% 36% 20% 60% 9% 9% 20% Pe r c e n t o f T o t a l R e a c h e s Surveyed Stream 30-40 % < 2mm 20-30 % < 2mm 10-20 % < 2mm 0-10 % < 2mm 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 18% 55% 73% 9% 9% 18% 18% 9% 27% 36% 36% 27% 9% 27% 36% 36% 82% 36% 27% 9% 45% 18% 9% 36% 9% 36% 9% 36% 9% 18% 9% 27% 9% 9% 9% 9% Pe r c e n t o f T o t a l R e a c h e s Surveyed Stream 90-100 % < 2mm 80-90 % < 2mm 70-80 % < 2mm 60-70 % < 2mm 50-60 % < 2mm 40-50 % < 2mm 30-40 % < 2mm 20-30 % < 2mm 10-20 % < 2mm 0-10 % < 2mm Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan Water Year 2014 Annual Monitoring Report Section 5 · Water Year 2014 Monitoring Results 5-3 Figure 5-3 RAM Results Comparison Table 5.1. Rapid Assessment Methodology Temporal Comparisons of Fine Particles (< 2mm diameter) Stream Name 2010 vs. 2012 Results 2012 vs. 2014 Results 2010 vs. 2014 Results No. of Reaches with Increases No. of Reaches with Decreases Average Percent Change No. of Reaches with Increases No. of Reaches with Decreases Average Percent Change No. of Reaches with Increases No. of Reaches with Decreases Average Percent Change Squaw Creek 4 1 7.2 0 5 -14.7 0 5 -7.5 Bear Creek 3 8 -2.7 8 3 1.8 4 7 -0.9 Martis Creek 1 10 -10.2 0 11 -5.3 1 10 -15.5 West Martis Creek 7 4 10.0 3 8 -5.5 3 8 -4.3 East Martis Creek 4 7 -7.2 6 5 -0.5 3 8 -7.7 The subsections below discuss RAM results for each surveyed stream segment in detail. The discussions are organized to include the WY 2014 results and a discussion of changes in each stream over time. The gradient analysis that was conducted in previous years was not continued. Results of these analysis have shown that the amount fine sediment substrate typically decreases in higher gradient reaches and increases in low gradient reaches. 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 WY 2010 WY 2012 WY 2014 Av e r a g e P e r c e n t a g e o f F i n e S e d i m e n t S u b s t r a t e Squaw Creek Bear Creek Martis Creek West Martis East Martis Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan Section 5 · Water Year 2014 Monitoring Results Water Year 2014 Annual Monitoring Report 5-4 The RAM results for WY 2014 are presented graphically using maps showing the reach locations and their fine sediment classifications. The photographs in Figure 5-4 provide examples of low and high fine sediment substrate conditions in higher and lower gradient reaches. Another factor that has been observed to influence fine sediment deposition is the existence of beaver dams. FIGURE 5-4a . Squaw Creek: Example of Low Percentage Fine Sediment Substrate FIGURE 5-4b. Martis Creek: Example of High Percentage Fine Sediment Substrate Squaw Creek The land adjacent to the monitored segment of Squaw Creek consists of natural forested areas with some private residences. The upstream watershed consists of steep slopes with a large ski resort and high traffic roadways, commercial and residential land uses also exist. In WY 2014, all reaches within the surveyed segment of Squaw Creek contained 5 to 16 percent fine substrate with an average value of 11 percent. Eight percent of this average substrate was classified as sand and 2 percent was classified as fines. The stream segment contains a large number of cobbles with a median diameter of 97mm. The percentage of fine substrate decreased in all reaches when compared to WY 2010 and WY 2012 RAM data. After the 2010 RAM surveys, a very large winter, and corresponding spring runoff event, occurred. This may explain the larger change in conditions observed between 2010 and 2012. Since that time, precipitation and runoff has been below average and may account for the relative stability from 2012 to 2014. The results are presented graphically in Figure 5-5. Bear Creek The land adjacent to the monitored segment of Bear Creek consists of forested areas that generally provide a good buffer from nearby high traffic roadways. The upstream watershed consists of steep hillsides with a large ski resort and residential development. In WY 2014, all reaches of Bear Creek contained between 4 and 22 percent fine substrate with an average value of 10 percent. Eight percent of this average substrate was classified as sand and 2 percent was classified as fines. The median diameter particle size in the surveyed segment was 55mm. The amount of fine substrate varied on a reach by reach basis; however, the overall amount remained fairly consistent when comparing results over time. Beaver dams exist in Reaches 1and 2 where the largest amount of fine substrate was observed. The results are presented graphically in Figure 5-6 . Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan Water Year 2014 Annual Monitoring Report Section 5 · Water Year 2014 Monitoring Results 5-5 Martis Creek Main Stem The land adjacent to the monitored segment of Martis Creek consists of a large meadow and public use trails (non-motorized). The upstream watershed consists of moderately steep hillsides and contains a portion of the Northstar Ski Resort. The upper portions of the creek pass through a large area of mostly undeveloped forest land before reaching the Martis Camp and Lahontan residential communities. The monitored segment of Martis Creek lies in Martis Valley downstream of these communities and their incorporated golf courses. The monitored segment is relatively flat with a longitudinal slope ranging from near 0 to 0.7 percent. In WY 2014, the surveyed reaches of the main stem of Martis Creek were categorized as having 0 to 13 percent fine substrate with an average value of 6 percent. Three percent of this average substrate was classified as sand and 3 percent was classified as fines. The surveyed portion of the stream contains a low percentage of cobbles, and the median diameter particle size was 23mm. The amount of fine substrate decreased substantially from WY 2010 to WY 2014. This could be attributed to the large spring runoff in 2011 which may have caused scouring and transportation of fine substrate downstream. These results are presented graphically in Figure 5-7. West Martis Creek The land adjacent to the monitored segment of West Martis Creek consists of a natural meadow, public use trails, a golf course, and residential development. The upstream watershed consists of moderately steep hillsides and a large portion of the Northstar Ski Resort. Commercial, residential, and golf course land uses also exist in the upper watershed. A comparison of RAM results between other surveyed Martis Creek segments and West Martis Creek indicate higher amounts of fine sediment are present in this branch of Martis Creek. In WY 2014, the West Martis Creek RAM segment contained between 5 and 53 percent fine substrate. West Martis Creek had the highest average percentage of fine substrate during WY 2014 at 23 percent. Eleven percent of this average substrate was classified as sand and 12 percent was classified as fines. The surveyed portion of the stream contains a low percentage of cobbles in the lower meadow reaches, and a moderate amount of cobbles in the upper reaches adjacent to the Northstar golf course. The median diameter particle size for the entire surveyed channel was 24mm. The amount of fine substrate increased from WY 2010 to WY 2012 and then decreased from WY 2012 to WY 2014. These results are presented graphically in Figure 5-7. East Martis Creek The land adjacent to the monitored segment of East Martis Creek consists of a natural meadow, public use trails and unpaved roads. The upstream watershed is moderately steep with forested hillsides and some existing dirt roads. In WY 2014, the surveyed reaches of East Martis Creek were categorized as having 5 to 27 percent fine substrate with an average value of 15 percent. Four percent of this average substrate was classified as sand and 11 percent was classified as fines. The surveyed portion of the stream contains a low percentage of cobbles at its lower end in the meadow, and a moderate amount of cobbles in the upper extent outside the meadow. The median diameter particle size was 37mm. The amount of fine substrate was relatively consistent for the three years surveyed, but there was an overall decrease of approximately 8 percent from WY 2010 to WY 2014. The WY 2014 results are presented graphically in Figure 5-8. Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan Section 5 · Water Year 2014 Monitoring Results Water Year 2014 Annual Monitoring Report 5-6 Figure 5-5 Squaw Creek RAM Results Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan Water Year 2014 Annual Monitoring Report Section 5 · Water Year 2014 Monitoring Results 5-7 Figure 5-6 Bear Creek RAM Results Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan Section 5 · Water Year 2014 Monitoring Results Water Year 2014 Annual Monitoring Report 5-8 Figure 5-7 Martis and West Martis Creek RAM Results Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan Water Year 2014 Annual Monitoring Report Section 5 · Water Year 2014 Monitoring Results 5-9 Figure 5-8 East Martis Creek RAM Results Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan Section 5 · Water Year 2014 Monitoring Results Water Year 2014 Annual Monitoring Report 5-10 5.2 Bioassessments Bioassessments were conducted in Squaw and Martis Creeks during the summer and fall of 2014. Squaw Creek surveys were completed in late June and Martis Creek surveys were completed in September. Squaw Creek bioassessments typically occur earlier in the season because flows in Squaw Creek are known to dry up or become intermittent, particularly during drought years. The bioassessment results are presented for each creek and include general descriptions of conditions and field observations. 5.2. 1 Bioassessment Results Bioassessment results are presented in this section beginning with a discussion of field conditions and measurements and followed with the presentation of detailed laboratory results and calculations. A complete set of the original field data forms are provided in Appendix C. Squaw Creek Weather conditions were fair and warm during the late June bioassessment surveys in Squaw Creek. 2014 sampling was conducted earlier than in previous survey years (i.e., late June as opposed to mid- or late-July) to account for anticipated dry conditions resulting from lower than average precipitation during WY 2014. Stream temperatures ranged from 9.8 to 13.5°C and pH ranged from 6.6 to 7.4. Conductivity ranged from 67 to 83 µS/cm and dissolved oxygen ranged from 10.0 to 13.3 milligrams/liter at 95 to 128 percent saturation. Discharge in Squaw Creek was estimated at approximately 4 cfs during the surveys. Surface flows between pool-riffle-run sequences were still continuous (i.e., no intermittent flows or dry channel sections were present along the longitudinal profile). Mean wetted width was between 4.8 and 7.3 meters and mean depth was between 25 and 38 centimeters. Median particle size (D50) was between 5 and 11 millimeters. Particles less than 2 millimeters (<2 mm) in diameter (i.e., “fines and sands” per the SWAMP definition) comprised between 20 and 23 percent of the streambed. Particles less than 3 millimeters (<3 mm) in diameter (i.e., “fines and sands” per the Squaw Creek sediment TMDL definition) comprised between 26 and 40 percent of the streambed. Cobbles were scarce, with mean cobble embeddedness between 28 and 53 percent. Filamentous algae growth was more substantial than in previous study years, more typical of conditions later in the summer when lower and/or intermittent flow conditions develop. Aquatic macrophytes were also more abundant than in previous study years, particularly in depositional and lower gradient erosional areas within the stream. Representative photos of each site are provided in Figure 5-9. The channel in this meadow section of Squaw Creek is very low gradient (0.01% to 0.35% slope) with relatively high sinuosity (1.1 to 1.9). The channel is typically open and un-shaded (canopy cover was between 0% and <1%). Stream banks are lined with low herbaceous cover (grasses, sedges, etc.) and sparse willow bushes. The channel appeared incised with stream banks at all sites showing signs of erosion (100% eroded banks). Several banks had boulder rip-rap placed as protection, most of which was failing. Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan Water Year 2014 Annual Monitoring Report Section 5 · Water Year 2014 Monitoring Results 5-11 FIGURE 5-9a. Collecting benthic macro invertebrate samples in Squaw Creek (6/27/14). FIGURE 5-9b .Measuring physical habitat conditions in Squaw Creek (6/27/14). FIGURE 5-9c . Looking upstream from the middle of the Lower Meadow site (6/26/14) FIGURE 5-9d . Looking upstream from near the top of the Middle Meadow site (6/27/14) FIGURE 5-9e . Looking upstream from the middle of the Upper Meadow site (6/27/14). FIGURE 5-9f . Failing rip-rap armor along the right bank of the Upper Meadow site (6/27/14). Figure 5-9 Squaw Creek Bioassessment Photos Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan Section 5 · Water Year 2014 Monitoring Results Water Year 2014 Annual Monitoring Report 5-12 Martis Creek Weather conditions were fair during the September surveys in Martis Creek. Stream temperatures ranged from 6.2 to 13.0°C and pH ranged from 6.3 to 8.0. Conductivity ranged from 83 to 150 µS/cm and dissolved oxygen ranged from 10.3 to 14.5 milligrams/liter at 91 to 137 percent saturation. Discharge in mainstem Martis Creek was estimated at approximately 5 ft3/sec during the surveys. Flows in the West Branch, East Branch, and Schaeffer Branch were estimated at approximately 1 to 2 ft3/sec at the time of our surveys. Generally, discharge was lower in the upper portions of the watershed (1 to 2 cfs in the Schaeffer Branch [site Bio‐MC1] and the upper West Branch [site Bio‐ MC3]) and greater in the lower portions of the watershed (approximately 5 cfs in the lower mainstem). Mean wetted width was between 0.9 and 2.1 meters and mean depth was between 7 and 17 centimeters. Median particle size (D50) was between 17 and 39 millimeters. Particles less than 2 millimeters in diameter (fines and sands) comprised between 7 and 20 percent of the streambed. Mean cobble embeddedness was between 14 and 32 percent. Representative photos of each site are provided in Figure 5‐10. The channels in the upstream headwater sections of Martis Creek are relatively high gradient (e.g., 4.9% slope in the upper West Branch [site Bio‐MC3] and 3.1% in the Schaeffer Branch [site Bio‐MC1]) with relatively low sinuosity (1.1 to 1.2). Stream gradient in the downstream meadow sections of Martis Creek is lower (between 0.4% and 2.5%) with slightly higher sinuosity (between 1.1 and 1.4). In the upper reaches, the channel is typically well shaded by alder and willow bushes and an overstory of conifers (e.g., mean canopy cover was 81% and 88% in the Schaeffer Branch [site Bio‐MC1] and the upper West Branch [site Bio‐MC3], respectively); whereas in the lower reaches, no overstory is present and stream banks are lined with low herbaceous cover (grasses, sedges, etc.) and some sparse willow bushes (mean canopy cover in the lower reaches was between 5% and 24%). At several locations in the lower reaches, the channel appeared somewhat incised with some eroding or vulnerable stream banks (the highest percentage of eroded banks was 91% in the middle mainstem of Martis Creek [site Bio‐MC2]). The lowest percentages of eroded banks were in the lower reaches of the West Branch (site Bio‐MC4) and the East Branch (site Bio‐MC6) where only five and four percent of stream banks were described as eroded or vulnerable, respectively. Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan Water Year 2014 Annual Monitoring Report Section 5 · Water Year 2014 Monitoring Results 5-13 FIGURE 5-10a. Looking upstream from the bottom of site Bio-MC1 in the Schaeffer Branch (9/12/14). FIGURE 5-10b. Looking upstream from the bottom of site Bio-MC2 in middle Martis Creek (9/5/14). FIGURE 5-10c. Looking upstream from the bottom of site Bio-MC3 in the upper West Branch (9/12/14). FIGURE 5-10d. Looking upstream from the bottom of site Bio-MC4 in the lower West Branch (9/4/14). FIGURE 5-10e. Looking upstream from the bottom of site Bio-MC5 in lower Martis Creek (9/14/12). FIGURE 5-10f. Looking upstream from the bottom of site Bio-MC6 in the lower East Branch (9/29/10). Figure 5-10 Martis Creek Bioassessment Photos Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan Section 5 · Water Year 2014 Monitoring Results Water Year 2014 Annual Monitoring Report 5-14 5.2.3 Bioassessment Laboratory Results The most common taxa collected in Squaw Creek during 2014 were aquatic earthworms (Oligochaeta), the ubiquitous mayfly Baetis, nemourid stoneflies of the genus Zapada, and chironomid midges of the genus Micropsectra. Other abundant taxa included winter stoneflies of the genus Capnia, the chironomid midges Orthocladius lignicola and the Tvetenia bavarica group, and chloroperlid stoneflies of the genus Sweltsa. Benthic density was relatively high in Squaw Creek during 2014, averaging 2,293 individuals/ft2 for all riffle samples. The most common taxa collected in Martis Creek during 2014 were the elmid beetle Optioservus quadrimaculatus, the nemourid stonefly Zapada cinctipes, mayflies of the genus Paraleptophlebia, aquatic earthworms (Oligochaeta), chironomid midges of the genus Micropsectra, and amphipods of the genus Hyalella. Other abundant taxa included flatworms of the class Turbellaria, chloroperlid stoneflies of the genus Sweltsa, and clinger mayflies of the genus Cinygmula. Benthic density averaged 1,151 individuals/ft2 for all 2014 Martis Creek riffle (TRC) samples, and 995 individuals/ft2 for all 2014 Martis samples (TRC and RWB samples combined). Eastern Sierra IBI scores and values for the component IBI metrics are listed in Table 5‐2 for all riffle composite samples. A complete 500‐fixed‐count taxa list for all of these samples from Squaw Creek and Martis Creek sites is provided in Table 5‐3. Generally, Squaw Creek sites had lower IBI scores (52 to 85 out of a possible 100) and Martis Creek sites had higher IBI scores (56 to 98 out of a possible 100). Low IBI scores were mostly attributable to poor taxa richness (i.e., low total richness, as well as low caddisfly [Trichoptera], mayfly [Ephemeroptera], and mite [Acari] richness combined with high proportional chironomid richness, in particular), high dominance, and high weighted tolerance (i.e., high Hilsenhoff Biotic Index scores). The highest IBI scores were from the upstream headwater sites in the Schaeffer Branch (site Bio‐MC1) and Upper West Branch (site Bio‐MC3) of Martis Creek (98 and 86 out of a possible 100, respectively). The differences in survey times between Squaw and Martis Creeks are not likely to have contributed to the differences in IBI scores for these streams since both sampling events were within the June‐September index period for the Sierra Nevada region. Biological Condition Scores for the three Squaw Creek sites were low. The upper meadow site (Bio‐ SC1) scored 13 out of a possible 35; the middle meadow site (Bio‐SC2) scored 19 out of a possible 35, and the lower meadow (Bio‐SC3) scored 13 out of a possible 35. Discussion and interpretation of 2014 bioassessment results from Squaw Creek and Martis Creek and comparisons with data from previous monitoring years is provided in Section 6.1, including further discussion of numerical targets for biological health and physical habitat specific to the Squaw Creek sediment TMDL. Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan Water Year 2014 Annual Monitoring Report Section 5 · Water Year 2014 Monitoring Results 5-15 Table 5-2. Summary of 2014 TRWQMP Bioassessment Results (Squaw Creek and Martis Creek sites) BIOASSESSMENT STATION ID BIO -SC1 BIO -SC2 BIO -SC3 BIO -MC1 BIO -MC2 BIO -MC3 BIO -MC4 BIO -MC5 BIO -MC6 LOCATION (Stream Reach) Upper Meadow Squaw Middle Meadow Squaw Lower Meadow Squaw Schaeffer Branch Martis Middle Mainstem Martis Upper West Branch Martis Lower West Branch Martis Lower Mainstem Martis East Branch Martis GE N E R A L Survey Date 6/27/14 6/27/14 6/26/14 9/12/14 9/5/14 9/12/14 9/4/14 9/5/14 9/11/14 Discharge (cfs) 4.0 4.0 4.0 1.0 5.0 1.0 2.0 5.0 1.0 Reach Slope (%) 0.2 0.2 0.3 3.1 0.6 4.9 1.7 0.4 2.5 Reach Sinuosity 1.8 1.1 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.4 1.1 1.1 Mean Wetted Width (m) 7.3 5.3 4.8 1.9 2.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.9 Mean Depth (cm) 38 25 29 7 21 11 11 11 17 BE D Median Particle Size (mm) 5 10 11 26 17 35 20 20 39 % Particles < 2 mm 23 21 20 7 18 11 20 19 12 % Particles < 3 mm 40 26 29 7 18 11 20 19 12 Mean Cobble Embeddedness (%) 53 42 28 18 32 14 20 20 16 BA N K Stable Banks (%) 0 0 0 59 9 18 95 41 96 Eroded Banks (%) 100 100 100 41 91 82 5 59 4 Mean Canopy Cover (%) 0 0 0 81 24 88 14 14 5 WA T E R Q U A L I T Y Survey Time 1200 0900 1250 1000 1000 1300 1450 1300 1230 Water Temperature (°C) 11.5 9.8 13.5 6.2 9.9 10.2 11.9 13.2 9.4 pH 7.5 6.6 7.4 7.2 6.7 7.4 8.1 8.6 6.5 DO Concentration (mg/L) 12.0 10.0 13.3 12.6 10.3 11.5 12.0 14.5 12.6 DO Saturation (%) 110 95 128 102 91 102 111 137 110 Conductivity (µS) 70 67 83 83 115 142 150 121 128 BI O L O G I C A L M E T R I C S Total Taxa Richness 42 47 39 55 36 45 47 43 34 Ephemeroptera Richness 9 9 6 9 4 7 4 9 7 Plecoptera Richness 6 7 5 10 5 8 4 4 4 Trichoptera Richness 1 2 1 8 2 8 6 3 3 Acari Richness 4 6 4 5 4 2 4 4 0 % Chironomidae Richness 15 15 17 11 28 16 28 26 21 % Tolerant Taxa 10 8 13 4 3 4 6 7 6 % Shredders 13 14 15 21 30 24 18 4 10 % Dominant 3 Taxa 51 39 66 30 68 39 44 54 56 Hilsenhoff Biotic Index 4.4 4.3 4.4 2.8 3.4 3.1 4.2 3.6 4.8 Eastern Sierra IBI Score (0-100) 51.6 84.3 71.3 98.0 57.9 86.2 76.8 75.2 56.3 Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan Section 5 · Water Year 2014 Monitoring Results Water Year 2014 Annual Monitoring Report 5-16 Table 5-3. Taxa Listings for 500 -Fixed -Count Samples from 2014 Squaw Creek and Martis Creek Bioassessments (Riffle Composite Samples) SAFIT Level II FINAL ID BIO - SC1 BIO - SC2 BIO - SC3 BIO - MC1 BIO - MC2 BIO - MC3 BIO - MC4 BIO - MC5 BIO - MC6 Hydra 1 Turbellaria 26 8 30 77 1 Nemata 1 1 2 Oligochaeta 240 79 169 28 17 33 30 23 32 Helobdella Ostracoda 9 4 4 9 2 5 1 Hyalella 2 153 Pacifastacus leniusculus leniusculus 1 1 Brachypoda Acari 5 35 3 Aturus 1 Feltria 1 Protzia 9 10 3 3 5 Atractides 5 22 9 Wandesia 2 Hydryphantidae 2 Hygrobates 2 Megapella Lebertia 1 1 1 11 1 5 4 Sperchon 1 4 12 3 Testudacarus 2 7 2 1 Torrenticola 1 2 3 Ferrissia 1 Lymnaea Physa Gyraulus circumstriatus 4 Pisidium casertanum 2 4 6 1 Ameletus 6 5 7 1 Baetis 4 64 39 Baetis tricaudatus 19 2 11 4 3 1 Acentrella 2 1 Centroptilum 2 1 Diphetor hageni 1 1 6 1 4 5 Caudatella heterocaudata 7 Drunella 4 Drunella doddsi 12 Drunella grandis 3 2 6 24 4 Ephemerella dorothea 46 Serratella 2 2 Timpanoga 2 Cinygma 1 Cinygmula 1 3 5 22 6 54 7 3 18 Ecdyonurus 1 Ecdyonurus criddlei 1 Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan Water Year 2014 Annual Monitoring Report Section 5 · Water Year 2014 Monitoring Results 5-17 Table 5-3. Taxa Listings for 500 -Fixed -Count Samples from 2014 Squaw Creek and Martis Creek Bioassessments (Riffle Composite Samples) SAFIT Level II FINAL ID BIO - SC1 BIO - SC2 BIO - SC3 BIO - MC1 BIO - MC2 BIO - MC3 BIO - MC4 BIO - MC5 BIO - MC6 Epeorus 1 Ironodes 5 15 1 1 Rhithrogena 1 15 Paraleptophlebia 6 5 11 26 10 24 7 87 73 Tricorythodes 3 Capniidae Capnia 55 16 18 Sweltsa 18 26 7 22 29 45 3 3 2 Leuctridae 3 2 Malenka 3 6 1 8 2 10 2 10 Prostoia besametsa 1 1 Zapada cinctipes 23 138 97 81 18 37 Zapada 18 50 39 1 Suwallia 3 Yoraperla nigrisoma 72 1 1 Calineuria californica 6 9 Frisonia picticeps 2 1 Kogotus/Rickera 1 Isoperla 1 3 1 Skwala 2 6 9 4 3 Pteronarcys princeps 6 1 Sialis Apatania 2 3 Brachycentrus americanus 5 4 Micrasema 2 Anagapetus 15 15 Hydropsyche 8 1 1 16 10 Parapsyche 1 1 Hydroptila 3 Ochrotrichia 2 2 1 Lepidostoma 1 2 1 Cryptochia 2 Ecclisomyia Dolophilodes 2 Rhyacophila 9 2 8 2 Rhyacophila angelita group 1 Rhyacophila arnaudi Rhyacophila brunnea group 1 5 1 Dicosmoecus 1 Onocosmoecus 1 1 Oreodytes scitulus scitulus 2 Agabus 1 1 Eubrianax edwardsii 1 Cleptelmis addenda 1 15 53 Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan Section 5 · Water Year 2014 Monitoring Results Water Year 2014 Annual Monitoring Report 5-18 Table 5-3. Taxa Listings for 500 -Fixed -Count Samples from 2014 Squaw Creek and Martis Creek Bioassessments (Riffle Composite Samples) SAFIT Level II FINAL ID BIO - SC1 BIO - SC2 BIO - SC3 BIO - MC1 BIO - MC2 BIO - MC3 BIO - MC4 BIO - MC5 BIO - MC6 Heterlimnius corpulentus 35 38 Lara avara 3 17 Narpus 1 1 Optioservus quadrimaculatus 2 1 171 63 139 Zaitzevia parvula 23 7 13 Bezzia/Palpomyia 8 11 2 1 2 2 2 1 Stilobezzia 1 Tanypus Brundiniella Conchapelopia 5 Pentaneura 2 2 1 Zavrelimyia Boreoheptagyia 1 Diamesa 1 Pagastia 3 1 5 4 11 Potthastia gaedii group 5 Monodiamesa Brillia Chaetocladius 17 Corynoneura 15 9 9 Cricotopus ssp. 1 15 37 8 Cricotopus bicinctus group 1 2 Cricotopus nostocicola Eukiefferiella claripennis group 1 2 Eukiefferiella devonica group 2 1 2 Eukiefferiella gracei group 1 3 Nanocladius Orthocladius 1 Orthocladius lignicola 34 14 20 Parakiefferiella 3 Parametriocnemus 2 4 2 3 Psectrocladius 3 12 3 Rheocricotopus 2 3 1 7 Synorthocladius 6 2 13 1 1 Thienemanniella 1 1 1 6 Tvetenia 4 4 1 24 16 34 Tvetenia bavarica group 7 35 16 Larsia 15 4 5 Zavrelimyia 1 1 Microtendipes 1 Polypedilum 1 1 1 Micropsectra 10 36 45 42 3 16 35 5 11 Chironomus 4 10 Cryptochironomus 1 Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan Water Year 2014 Annual Monitoring Report Section 5 · Water Year 2014 Monitoring Results 5-19 Table 5-3. Taxa Listings for 500 -Fixed -Count Samples from 2014 Squaw Creek and Martis Creek Bioassessments (Riffle Composite Samples) SAFIT Level II FINAL ID BIO - SC1 BIO - SC2 BIO - SC3 BIO - MC1 BIO - MC2 BIO - MC3 BIO - MC4 BIO - MC5 BIO - MC6 Demicryptochironomus 1 Phaenopsectra 1 Paratanytarsus 1 Rheotanytarsus 8 1 2 Stempellina 1 Stempellinella 1 1 Diamesa 3 1 1 Pagastia 1 2 2 Tanytarsus 2 Pseudochironomus richardsoni 16 Dixa 1 1 1 Simulium ssp. 23 18 1 8 11 11 Simulium hippovorum 3 Simulium piperi 5 24 8 Pericoma 5 3 1 1 6 Antocha monticola 1 6 1 Cryptolabis 1 Dicranota 1 3 2 Hexatoma 1 1 1 Tipula 1 1 Neoplasta 1 8 Trichoclinocera 1 Glutops 7 Muscidae 2 3 1 5.3 Community Level Water Quality Monitoring This section describes the community level runoff events that were monitored by Placer County at the two locations in the Martis Creek watershed and then presents the water quality data, statistical analyses, and QA/QC documentation. Community level outfall monitoring was also conducted by the Town of Truckee during WY 2014 in response to preliminary findings of elevated sediment loads in Donner Creek as described in the WY 2013 Annual Report. The overall goal of these activities was to identify and prioritize the major sub-basins draining to Donner Creek with respect to their suspended sediment contributions. More information regarding this monitoring can be found in section 5.7. 5.3.1 Monitored Events During WY 2014, discrete stormwater runoff samples were collected from the two County sites described in Section 4. WY 2014 was the first year of sampling at sites DSC-MC4 and DSC-MC5, and eight separate runoff events were monitored between January, 2014 and July, 2014. A summary of all monitored runoff events at these two sites from WY 2014 are presented in Table 5-4. Included in Table 5-4 are the event date, event type, antecedent dry time, and total precipitation. Table 5-4 documents the variation in the monitored event characteristics which can affect the water quality of the runoff. For example, the antecedent dry time is the period without measurable Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan Section 5 · Water Year 2014 Monitoring Results Water Year 2014 Annual Monitoring Report 5-20 precipitation prior to each monitored event. Longer dry antecedent periods allow more pollutants to accumulate and wash off with stormwater runoff. Precipitation type, depth, intensity and duration also strongly influence pollutant concentrations in stormwater runoff. Collecting and analyzing samples from events with varying characteristics produces a stronger dataset that is more representative of overall stormwater quality. Table 5 -4. WY 2014 Community Level Water Quality Monitoring Event Summary Event Date Event Type 1 Antecedent Dry Time (Days) Total Precip (inches) County County Northstar Drive (DSC-MC4) Aspen Grove (DSC-MC5) WY 2014 1/30/2014 M 18 1.5 X X 2/8/2014 M 7 4.7 X X 2/26/2014 M 0.4 0.9 X X 3/6/2014 M 1 0.6 X X 3/27/2014 S 15 0.8 X X 4/25/2014 R 3 0.9 X X 5/20/2014 R 10 0.7 X X 7/31/2014 R 6 0.1 X X Total 8 8 1M = Mixed Snow/Rain; R = Rain; S = Snowmelt; X = Sample Collected 5.3.2 Water Quality Results Tables containing the complete event tallies and analytical results for all community level water quality monitoring conducted to date are presented in Appendix D. The results for TSS, turbidity, total nitrogen, and total phosphorus are also presented graphically in Figures 5-11, 5-12, 5-13, and 5-14, respectively. These figures present a single data point for each sample collected at sites DSC-MC4 and DSC-MC5 during WY 2014. The data are color coded according to event type to allow visual comparison of results from rain, mixed, and snowmelt events. The figures indicate that samples from the Northstar Drive site (DSC-MC4) tend to have much higher levels of TSS, turbidity, total nitrogen, and total phosphorus than samples from the Aspen Grove site (DSC-MC5). Mixed rain/snow events tended to produce the highest pollutant concentrations at both sites, although mean total nitrogen levels were considerably higher during rain events at the Northstar Drive site. Concentrations from snowmelt events were lowest for all four constituents at the Aspen Grove site, but only one snowmelt event was sampled due a general lack of snow in WY 2014 and their typically lower runoff volumes. Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan Water Year 2014 Annual Monitoring Report Section 5 · Water Year 2014 Monitoring Results 5-21 Figure 5-11 Site Comparisons – TSS Figure 5-12 Site Comparisons – Turbidity 536 72 1 10 100 1000 10000 DSC-MC4 DSC-MC5 County County Northstar Drive Aspen Grove TS S - L o g S c a l e ( m g / L ) TSS Comparison - Community Level Discrete Snowmelt Mixed Rain Mean Site ID Jurisdiction Location 185 46 1 10 100 1000 DSC-MC4 DSC-MC5 County County Northstar Drive Aspen Grove Tu r b i d i t y - L o g S c a l e ( N T U ) Turbidity Comparison - Community Level Discrete Snowmelt Mixed Rain Mean Site ID Jurisdiction Location Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan Section 5 · Water Year 2014 Monitoring Results Water Year 2014 Annual Monitoring Report 5-22 Figure 5-13 Site Comparisons – Total Nitrogen Figure 5-14 Site Comparisons – Total Phosphorus 2.4 0.7 0.1 1 10 DSC-MC4 DSC-MC5 County County Northstar Drive Aspen Grove To t a l N i t r o g e n - L o g S c a l e ( m g / L ) Total Nitrogen Comparison - Community Level Discrete Snowmelt Mixed Rain Mean Site ID Jurisdiction Location 0.23 0.07 0.01 0.1 1 DSC-MC4 DSC-MC5 County County Northstar Drive Aspen Grove To t a l P h o s p h o r u s - L o g S c a l e ( m g / L ) Total Phosphorus Comparison - Community Level Discrete Snowmelt Mixed Rain Mean Site ID Jurisdiction Location Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan Water Year 2014 Annual Monitoring Report Section 5 · Water Year 2014 Monitoring Results 5-23 5.3.3 Statistical Analyses A series of statistical analyses were performed to further evaluate the community level monitoring results. These included the calculation of summary level statistics, t-tests at the 95 percent confidence level, and Mann-Kendall trend analyses. 5.3.3.1 Summary Statistics Summary level statistics were generated to characterize and summarize the data set for each site and are presented below in Tables 5-5 and 5-6. The summary statistics tables include: the number of samples, percent of samples with detected pollutant concentrations, minimum, maximum, mean and median concentrations, the standard deviation and the coefficient of variation (CV). An evaluation of the summary statistics shows that nitrogen species (nitrite, ammonia and dissolved orthophosphate) had the highest number of non-detectable concentrations. Samples with non- detectable concentrations of nitrate, TKN and dissolved phosphorus were also collected at the Aspen Grove site (DSC-MC5). Results from the Northstar Drive site tended to be more variable as indicated by the larger standard deviation and CV values. Table 5-5. Northstar Drive Community Level Summary Statistics (Site DSC-MC4) Constituent Units n Percent Detection Range Mean Median Standard Deviation CV Min Max Total Suspended Solids mg/L 8 100% 39 1600 536 383 557 1.0 Turbidity NTU 8 100% 32 330 183 185 120 0.65 Nitrate as N mg/L 8 100% 0.04 1.0 0.33 0.24 0.31 1.0 Nitrite as N mg/L 8 50% 0.01 0.16 0.05 0.03 0.05 1.1 Ammonia as N mg/L 3 67 % 0.05 1.0 NC NC NC NC Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) mg/L 8 100% 0.33 8.6 2.1 1.2 2.7 1.3 Total Nitrogen as N mg/L 8 100% 0.37 9.6 2.4 1.3 3.0 1.3 Dissolved Phosphorus as P mg/L 8 100% 0.02 0.18 0.07 0.05 0.07 0.89 Dissolved Orthophosphate as P mg/L 7 86% 0.01 0.13 0.05 0.04 0.05 0.87 Total Phosphorus as P mg/L 8 100% 0.08 0.47 0.23 0.22 0.13 0.58 Notes : mg/L =milligrams per liter, NTU = nephelometric turbidity units. n = Number of samples Min and Max represent detected values only. The Robust ROS method was used to calculate mean values when non-detects were present. Total Nitrogen is the sum of nitrite (as N), nitrate (as N) and total Kjeldahl nitrogen The robust regression on order statistical (ROS) method was used for datasets containing detectable concentrations Percent Detection = percent of samples that were detected above the reporting limit CV = coefficient of variation Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan Section 5 · Water Year 2014 Monitoring Results Water Year 2014 Annual Monitoring Report 5-24 Table 5 -6. Aspen Grove Community Level Summary Statistics (Site DSC -MC5) Constituent Units n Percent Detection Range Mean Median Standard Deviation CV Min Max Total Suspended Solids mg/L 8 100% 2.0 220 72 47 78 1.1 Turbidity NTU 8 100% 3.7 120 46 42 42 0.91 Nitrate as N mg/L 8 88% 0.06 0.40 0.19 0.15 0.15 0.79 Nitrite as N mg/L 8 38% 0.01 0.12 0.03 0.01 0.04 1.3 Ammonia as N mg/L 3 33 % NC NC NC NC NC NC Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) mg/L 8 75% 0.12 1.4 0.55 0.37 0.50 0.91 Total Nitrogen as N mg/L 8 88% 0.18 1.8 0.75 0.47 0.61 0.81 Dissolved Phosphorus as P mg/L 8 75% 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.59 Dissolved Orthophosphate as P mg/L 7 14% NC NC NC NC NC NC Total Phosphorus as P mg/L 8 100% 0.02 0.14 0.07 0.06 0.04 0.61 Notes : mg/L =milligrams per liter, NTU = nephelometric turbidity units. n = Number of samples Min and Max represent detected values only. The Robust ROS method was used to calculate mean values when non-detects were present. Total Nitrogen is the sum of nitrite (as N), nitrate (as N) and total Kjeldahl nitrogen NC = Not calculated; insufficient number of detections to generate statistics The robust regression on order statistical (ROS) method was used for datasets containing detectable concentrations Percent Detection = percent of samples that were detected above the reporting limit CV = coefficient of variation 5.3.3.2 Statistical Comparisons Statistical comparisons (t-tests at the 95 percent confidence level and Mann-Kendall trend analyses) were conducted on select data groups to determine whether observed spatial or temporal differences in water quality were significant. The results of the individual t-tests and trend analyses are included in Appendix A, and are summarized in Table 5-7. The statistical analyses allowed for the following conclusions to be made: The results of the t-tests indicate that samples collected at the Northstar Drive site (DSC-MC4) had significantly higher mean concentrations than samples from the Aspen Grove site (DSC- MC5) for TSS, turbidity, total nitrogen, and total phosphorus at the 95 percent confidence level. Although the power analysis indicates no additional samples are needed to discern statistically valid water quality differences between these two sites, it should be noted that these results are based on eight samples collected during a dry year. The results of the trend analyses indicate increasing concentrations of total nitrogen and dissolved phosphorus at the Northstar Drive site, and slightly decreasing trends of total phosphorus at both sites. These results are sensitive to the more extreme values in this limited dataset (one water year) and are not clearly indicative of changes/activities in the watersheds. As the program continues, these tests will become more reliable in determining if long-term trends exist. If long-term trends are identified, correlations between these results and changes to the conditions or management in the watersheds can be investigated. Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan Water Year 2014 Annual Monitoring Report Section 5 · Water Year 2014 Monitoring Results 5-25 Table 5 -7. Statistical Analysis - Communi ty Level Monitoring 1 TSS Turbidity Total Nitrogen Total Phosphorus Diss. Phosphorus DSC-MC4 Mean 536 183 2.4 0.23 0.07 DSC-MC5 Mean 72 46 0.75 0.07 0.02 t-test Statistical Difference Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Power Analysis Additional Samples 2 0 0 0 0 0 DSC-MC4 Trend Analysis None None Increasing Slightly Decreasing Increasing DSC-MC5 Trend Analysis None None None Slightly Decreasing None 1 See Appendix A for detailed results. Mean concentrations reported in mg/L with the exception of turbidity presented in NTU. 2 Estimated number of additional samples required to discern a statistically significant difference. 5.3.4 Community Level Discussion WY 2014 was the first year of data collection at the Northstar Drive and Aspen Grove community level water quality monitoring sites. To put these results into a regional context, the event mean concentrations (EMCs) that were developed for the Lake Tahoe TMDL (LRWQCB and NDEP, 2010) for TSS, total nitrogen, and total phosphorus for various land use categories are provided in Table 5-8. This comparison shows that TSS and total nitrogen concentrations at the Northstar Drive site are on the higher end of Tahoe TMDL concentration ranges while total phosphorus concentrations at this site are considerably lower. The concentrations of TSS, total nitrogen, and total phosphorus at the Aspen Grove site are much lower than the Tahoe TMDL values indicating a good level of treatment is being provided by the long vegetated swale upstream of this site. Table 5-8. Tahoe TMDL Event Mean Concentrations Land Use Category TSS (mg/L) Total Nitrogen (mg/L) Total Phosphorus (mg/L) Vegetation/Turf 34 3.85 2.41 Ski Runs 848 0.51 0.45 Single Family Residential - Pervious 103 1.88 0.75 Single Family Residential - Impervious 56 1.64 0.44 Multi -Family Residential - Pervious 418 2.81 1.22 Multi -Family Residential - Impervious 160 2.62 0.52 Commercial/Institutional/ Communications/Utilities - Pervious 555 2.41 1.04 Commercial/Institutional/ Communications/Utilities - Impervious 260 2.10 0.52 Primary Roads 950 3.72 2.01 Secondary Roads 154 2.79 0.60 Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan Section 5 · Water Year 2014 Monitoring Results Water Year 2014 Annual Monitoring Report 5-26 Figure 5-15 Northstar Drive site Figure 5-16 Aspen Grove Site Northstar Drive (DSC-MC4) One year of data at this site indicates it has relatively high mean values for TSS, turbidity, total phosphorus, dissolved phosphorus, and total nitrogen. The drainage area consists of multi- family residential homes, secondary paved roadways (Northstar Drive), and paved parking lots. The monitoring location is shown in Figure 5- 15. High nitrogen concentrations were observed during one large thunderstorm event on July 31, 2014. This could be attributed to a period of dry antecedent conditions and the presence of dead and decaying vegetation in the drainage area at this time. Aspen Grove (DSC-MC5) The site receives runoff from multiple land uses including multifamily residential homes, secondary paved roadways, forested uplands and paved parking lots. Runoff from the Northstar Drive site travels through an open vegetated earthen channel that meanders through riparian vegetation within the Aspen Grove property and eventually discharges into West Martis Creek. The DSC-MC5 monitoring location is in the channel just upstream of West Martis Creek as shown in Figure 5-16 The water quality results from this site indicate that the open channel described above is effectively reducing pollutant concentrations before runoff is discharged to West Martis Creek. The highest pollutant concentrations were observed during higher intensity runoff events such as the thunderstorm event that was sampled on July 31, 2014. 5.3.5 QA/QC Results Upon receipt from the laboratory, each analytical report was thoroughly reviewed and the data evaluated to determine if the data met the study objectives. Initially, the data were screened for the following major items: A 100 percent check between electronic data provided by the laboratory and the hard copy reports; Conformity check between the chain-of-custody forms, compositing protocol, and laboratory reports; Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan Water Year 2014 Annual Monitoring Report Section 5 · Water Year 2014 Monitoring Results 5-27 A check for laboratory data report completeness; and, A check for typographical errors on the laboratory reports. After performing the aforementioned data screening, the laboratory was notified of any deficiencies, if any, detailing the problems encountered during the initial screening process. Following the initial screening, a more complete QA/QC review was performed, which included an evaluation of method holding times, method blank contamination, and accuracy and precision. Accuracy was evaluated by reviewing MS, MSD, and LCS recoveries; precision was evaluated by reviewing field duplicate, spike duplicate and laboratory sample duplicate RPDs. Data quality assessment was based upon review of holding times, laboratory blanks, laboratory control samples, laboratory duplicates, matrix spikes and matrix spike duplicates, reporting limits, and field duplicates. Based on the data review, none of the constituent results were rejected. Appendix E provides the detailed descriptions of specific items that were evaluated during the QA/QC review process and data that were qualified as estimated due to QC exceedences. 5.4 Tributary Level Discrete Water Quality Monitoring In this section the results of the WY 2014 tributary level water quality monitoring are presented including a description of the monitored events, water quality results, statistical analysis results, and a discussion of the QA/QC Results. Data and results from the two previous years of monitoring are also presented and discussed relative to the current year’s data. 5.4.1 Monitored Events During WY 2014, tributary level discrete samples were collected from all six of the monitoring locations described in Section 4. A summary of the events that were successfully monitored during WY 2014 is presented in Table 5-9. An effort was made to collect the tributary samples during elevated discharge conditions and during the rising limb of the event hydrograph, when possible, to improve the comparability of data among sites and over time. Figures 5-17 thru 5-24 illustrate when the samples were collected in relation to stream stage at the Martis Creek gauging station (Station GS- MC2). Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan Section 5 · Water Year 2014 Monitoring Results Water Year 2014 Annual Monitoring Report 5-28 Table 5 -9. 2011 -2014 Water Years Tributary Level Water Quality Monitoring Event Summary 1 Event Date Event Type 1 Antecedent Dry Time (Days) Total Precip (inches) WY 2011 12/14/2010 M 6 1.6 12/18/2010 M 1 2 3/15/2011 M 4 1.3 4/1/2011 S 6 NA 5/5/2011 S 10 NA 6/6/2011 M 1 1.5 6/29/2011 R 20 0.4 WY 2012 1/21/2012 M 23 1.8 3/14/2012 M 7 0.7 3/16/2012 M 1 2.1 3/21/2012 S 3 NA 4/20/2012 S 7 NA 4/23/2012 S 10 NA 4/26/2012 R 11 0.9 WY 2013 11/17/2012 M 9 0.8 11/30/2012 M 1 3.2 12/5/2012 R 1 0.8 12/17/2012 M 1 0.5 3/13/2013 S 7 NA 3/20/2013 M 14 0.5 3/31/2013 M 11 0.25 4/26/2013 S 11 NA 5/7/2013 R 0 0.4 WY 2014 1/30/2014 M 18 1.7 2/9/2014 M 7 4.7 2/27/2014 M 10 0.9 3/29/2014 M 4 1.1 4/8/2014 S 8 NA 5/20/2014 R 10 0.7 7/21/2014 R 1 0.3 8/4/2014 R 1 1.2 1M = Mixed Snow/Rain, R = Rain, S = Snowmelt. NA = not applicable Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan Water Year 2014 Annual Monitoring Report Section 5 · Water Year 2014 Monitoring Results 5-29 Figure 5-17 Tributary Event 1/30/14 Figure 5-18 Tributary Event 2/9/14 15.0 15.5 16.0 16.5 17.0 17.5 18.0 18.5 19.0 19.5 20.0 20.5 21.0 1/ 2 9 / 2 0 1 4 1/ 3 0 / 2 0 1 4 1/ 3 1 / 2 0 1 4 St a g e ( i n ) Date Martis Creek During Tributary Sampling - 1/30/14 Stage (in) Sample Collected 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 2/ 8 / 2 0 1 4 2/ 9 / 2 0 1 4 2/ 1 0 / 2 0 1 4 St a g e ( i n ) Date Martis Creek During Tributary Sampling - 2/9/14 Stage (in) Sample Collected Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan Section 5 · Water Year 2014 Monitoring Results Water Year 2014 Annual Monitoring Report 5-30 Figure 5-19 Tributary Event 2/27/14 Figure 5-20 Tributary Event 3/29/14 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2/ 2 6 / 2 0 1 4 2/ 2 7 / 2 0 1 4 2/ 2 8 / 2 0 1 4 St a g e ( i n ) Date Martis Creek During Tributary Monitoring - 2/27/14 Stage (in) Sample Collected 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 3/ 2 9 / 2 0 1 4 3/ 3 0 / 2 0 1 4 3/ 3 1 / 2 0 1 4 St a g e ( i n ) Date Martis Creek During Tributary Monitoring - 3/29/14 Stage (in) Sample Collected Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan Water Year 2014 Annual Monitoring Report Section 5 · Water Year 2014 Monitoring Results 5-31 Figure 5-21 Tributary Event 4/8/14 Figure 5-22 Tributary Event 5/20/14 18 18.2 18.4 18.6 18.8 19 19.2 19.4 19.6 19.8 20 4/ 8 / 2 0 1 4 4/ 9 / 2 0 1 4 4/ 1 0 / 2 0 1 4 St a g e ( i n ) Date Martis Creek During Tributary Sampling - 4/8/14 Stage (in) Sample Collected 16 16.5 17 17.5 18 18.5 19 19.5 20 5/ 2 0 / 2 0 1 4 5/ 2 1 / 2 0 1 4 5/ 2 2 / 2 0 1 4 St a g e ( i n ) Date Martis Creek During Tributary Monitoring - 5/20/14 Stage (in) Sample Collected Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan Section 5 · Water Year 2014 Monitoring Results Water Year 2014 Annual Monitoring Report 5-32 Figure 5-23 Tributary Event 7/21/14 Figure 5-24 Tributary Event 8/4/14 14 14.5 15 15.5 16 7/ 2 0 / 2 0 1 4 7/ 2 1 / 2 0 1 4 7/ 2 2 / 2 0 1 4 St a g e ( i n ) Date Martis Creek During Tributary Sampling - 7/21/14 Stage (in) Sample Collected 14 14.5 15 15.5 16 16.5 17 17.5 18 8/ 4 / 2 0 1 4 8/ 5 / 2 0 1 4 8/ 6 / 2 0 1 4 St a g e ( i n ) Date Martis Creek During Tributary Sampling - 8/4/14 Stage (in) Sample Collected Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan Water Year 2014 Annual Monitoring Report Section 5 · Water Year 2014 Monitoring Results 5-33 5.4.2 Water Quality Results The results for TSS, turbidity, total nitrogen, and total phosphorus are presented graphically in Figures 5-25, 5-26, 5-27, and 5-28, respectively. The figures show that the differences in mean concentrations are relatively small and no sites had consistently higher or lower mean concentrations. The largest increase in stream discharge occurred during the February 9, 2014 storm event. This was a large mixed rain/snow event that represented the largest storm that occurred during WY 2014. As expected, pollutant concentrations were elevated for TSS, turbidity and total nitrogen, but decreased for total phosphorus during this event relative to the other smaller monitored events. This event had a steep increase in stream discharge, little to no snowpack in much of the tributary watershed, and a large amount of precipitation (4.7 inches). The event tallies and complete analytical results for the tributary level water quality monitoring are presented in Appendix D. Figure 5-25 Tributary Site Comparisons – TSS 15 11 9 16 11 8 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 DST-MC1 DST-MC2 DST-MC3 DST-MC4 DST-MC5 DST-MC6 County County County County County County Martis Creek (Downstream) East Martis Creek Middle Martis Creek West Martis Creek Martis Creek (Upstream) Unnamed Tributary TS S ( m g / L ) TSS Comparison - Tributary Level Discrete Snowmelt Mixed Rain Mean Site ID Jurisdiction Location Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan Section 5 · Water Year 2014 Monitoring Results Water Year 2014 Annual Monitoring Report 5-34 Figure 5-26 Tributary Site Comparisons – Turbidity Figure 5-27 Tributary Site Comparisons – Total Nitrogen 10 8 8 9 8 8 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 DST-MC1 DST-MC2 DST-MC3 DST-MC4 DST-MC5 DST-MC6 County County County County County County Martis Creek (Downstream) East Martis Creek Middle Martis Creek West Martis Creek Martis Creek (Upstream) Unnamed Tributary Tu r b i d i t y ( N T U ) Turbidity Comparison - Tributary Level Discrete Snowmelt Mixed Rain Mean Site ID Jurisdiction Location 474 357 387 457 404 720 1450 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 DST-MC1 DST-MC2 DST-MC3 DST-MC4 DST-MC5 DST-MC6 County County County County County County Martis Creek (Downstream) East Martis Creek Middle Martis Creek West Martis Creek Martis Creek (Upstream) Unnamed Tributary To t a l N i t r o g e n ( µ g / L ) Total Nitrogen Comparison - Tributary Level Discrete Snowmelt Mixed Rain Mean Martis Creek at Mouth Numeric Objective Mean Site ID Jurisdiction Location Additional data point of 3,814 µg/L mix event not shown for clarity Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan Water Year 2014 Annual Monitoring Report Section 5 · Water Year 2014 Monitoring Results 5-35 Figure 5-28 Tributary Site Comparisons – Total Phosphorus 5.4.3 Statistical Analyses Statistical analyses were performed to further evaluate the tributary level monitoring results. These analyses consisted of summary statistics, t-tests at the 95 percent confidence level, and Mann-Kendall trend analyses. 5.4.3.1 Summary Statistics Summary level statistics were generated for the 2011 - 2014 combined dataset and are presented in Tables 5-10 thru 5-15. These summary statistics characterize the data from each site and include the number of samples, percent detection, minimum, maximum, mean, median, standard deviation and CV. The minimum and maximum values in these tables represent detected concentrations only. The Robust ROS method was used to calculate mean values when non-detect values were present. An evaluation of the summary statistics shows that nitrogen species (nitrate, nitrite, ammonia and TKN) had the highest number of non-detectable concentrations. Samples with non-detectable concentrations of TSS, dissolved phosphorus and dissolved orthophosphate were also collected. The CV values for all sites were high for most constituents indicating high variability from one event to another. 78 61 79 80 88 87 50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 DST-MC1 DST-MC2 DST-MC3 DST-MC4 DST-MC5 DST-MC6 County County County County County County Martis Creek (Downstream) East Martis Creek Middle Martis Creek West Martis Creek Martis Creek (Upstream) Unnamed Tributary To t a l P h o s p h o r u s ( µ g / L ) Total Phosphorus Comparison - Tributary Level Discrete Snowmelt Mixed Rain Mean Martis Creek at Mouth Numeric Objective Mean Site ID Jurisdiction Location Additional data point of 665 µg/L rain event not shown for clarity Additional data point of 820 µg/L mix event not shown for clarity Additional data point of 420 µg/L mix event not shown for clarity Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan Section 5 · Water Year 2014 Monitoring Results Water Year 2014 Annual Monitoring Report 5-36 Table 5 -10 . WY 2011 – WY 2014 Martis Creek Tributary Summary Statistics (DST -MC1) Constituent Units n Percent Detection Range Mean Median Standard Deviation Coefficient of Variation Min Max Total Suspended Solids mg/L 31 100% 2.0 82 15 6.0 20 1.3 Turbidity NTU 31 100% 2.2 54 9.9 5.7 11 1.1 Nitrate as N µg/L 16 50% 10.0 250 56 15 78 1.4 Nitrite as N µg/L 16 19% 10.0 44 14 10 11 0.78 Nitrate as N / Nitrite as N µg/L 13 100% 4.0 435 85 25 128 1.5 Ammonia as N µg/L 14 100% 1.0 6.0 3.6 4.0 1.5 0.43 Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) µg/L 31 87% 100 1152 411 290 270 0.66 Total Nitrogen as N µg/L 29 90% 120 1587 475 370 362 0.76 Dissolved Phosphorus as P µg/L 31 97% 20 153 42 33 27 0.64 Dissolved Orthophosphate as P µg/L 31 84% 10 140 27 14 32 1.2 Total Phosphorus as P µg/L 31 100% 22 244 78 56 56 0.71 Notes mg/L =milligrams per liter. NTU = nephelometric turbidity units. µg/L = micrograms per liter n = Number of samples Total Nitrogen is the sum of nitrate (as N), nitrite (as N), and total Kjeldahl nitrogen Percent Detection = percent of samples that were detected above the reporting limit Table 5 -11 . WY 2011 – WY 2014 Martis Creek Tributary Summary Statistics (DST -MC2) Constituent Units n Percent Detection Range Mean Median Standard Deviation Coefficient of Variation Min Max Total Suspended Solids mg/L 31 94% 1.0 47 11 7 11 1.0 Turbidity NTU 31 100% 2.1 27 7.9 6.5 5.5 0.7 Nitrate as N µg/L 16 44% 10.0 260 42 11 79 1.9 Nitrite as N µg/L 16 13% 10.0 46 14 10 12 0.80 Nitrate as N / Nitrite as N µg/L 15 93% 2.0 183 21 6.0 46 2.2 Ammonia as N µg/L 24 63% 1.0 100 30 50 8.9 0.29 Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) µg/L 31 81% 100 840 324 237 204 0.63 Total Nitrogen as N µg/L 31 81% 100 1100 357 240 245 0.69 Dissolved Phosphorus as P µg/L 31 100% 15 72 35 32 14 0.40 Dissolved Orthophosphate as P µg/L 31 94% 10 180 26 17 31 1.2 Total Phosphorus as P µg/L 31 100% 23 152 61 50 34 0.56 Notes mg/L =milligrams per liter. NTU = nephelometric turbidity units. µg/L = micrograms per liter n = Number of samples Total Nitrogen is the sum of nitrate (as N), nitrite (as N), and total Kjeldahl nitrogen Percent Detection = percent of samples that were detected above the reporting limit Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan Water Year 2014 Annual Monitoring Report Section 5 · Water Year 2014 Monitoring Results 5-37 Table 5 -12. WY 2011 – WY 2014 Martis Creek Tributary Summary Statistics (DST -MC3) Constituent Units n Percent Detection Range Mean Median Standard Deviation Coefficient of Variation Min Max Total Suspended Solids mg/L 29 76% 1.0 60 9 4.4 12 1.4 Turbidity NTU 29 100% 0.4 27 7.8 5.0 7.0 0.90 Nitrate as N µg/L 14 57% 10.0 260 50 17 76 1.5 Nitrite as N µg/L 14 21% 10.0 43 14 10 11 0.79 Nitrate as N / Nitrite as N µg/L 15 93% 1.0 302 33 5.0 76 2.3 Ammonia as N µg/L 14 100% 2.0 50 28 50 8.9 0.32 Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) µg/L 29 79% 10 968 352 302 214 0.61 Total Nitrogen as N µg/L 29 79% 100 1270 397 340 271 0.68 Dissolved Phosphorus as P µg/L 29 100% 16 200 47 35 38 0.80 Dissolved Orthophosphate as P µg/L 29 97% 10 181 33 22 35 1.0 Total Phosphorus as P µg/L 29 100% 22 255 79 61 57 0.72 Notes mg/L =milligrams per liter. NTU = nephelometric turbidity units. µg/L = micrograms per liter n = Number of samples Total Nitrogen is the sum of nitrate (as N), nitrite (as N), and total Kjeldahl nitrogen Percent Detection = percent of samples that were detected above the reporting limit Table 5 -13. WY 2011 – WY 2014 Martis Creek Tributary Summary Statistics (DST -MC4) Constituent Units n Percent Detection Range Min Max Mean Median Standard Deviation Coefficient of Variation Total Suspended Solids mg/L 31 100% 2.0 56 16 16 12 0.73 Turbidity NTU 31 100% 1.5 32 9.2 7.8 7.3 0.79 Nitrate as N µg/L 16 94% 10 620 137 72 160 1.2 Nitrite as N µg/L 16 19% 10 51 14 10 13 0.88 Nitrate as N / Nitrite as N µg/L 15 93% 16 661 127 100 157 1.2 Ammonia as N µg/L 14 100% 1.0 15 4.6 4.5 3.5 0.75 Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) µg/L 31 81% 100 780 374 296 197 0.53 Total Nitrogen as N µg/L 31 90% 35 1343 484 395 312 0.64 Dissolved Phosphorus as P µg/L 31 100% 10 340 44 24 60 1.4 Dissolved Orthophosphate as P µg/L 31 84% 4.0 160 25 14 30 1.2 Total Phosphorus as P µg/L 31 100% 20 420 80 52 76 0.95 Notes mg/L =milligrams per liter. NTU = nephelometric turbidity units. µg/L = micrograms per liter n = Number of samples Total Nitrogen is the sum of nitrate (as N), nitrite (as N), and total Kjeldahl nitrogen Percent Detection = percent of samples that were detected above the reporting limit Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan Section 5 · Water Year 2014 Monitoring Results Water Year 2014 Annual Monitoring Report 5-38 Table 5 -14. WY 2011 – WY 2014 Martis Creek Tributary Summary Statistics (DST -MC5) Constituent Units n Percent Detection Range Min Max Mean Median Standard Deviation Coefficient of Variation Total Suspended Solids mg/L 31 97% 1.0 48 11 6.3 11 1.1 Turbidity NTU 31 100% 2.1 49 8.1 5.3 8.9 1.1 Nitrate as N µg/L 16 63% 10.0 220 47 18 62 1.3 Nitrite as N µg/L 16 25% 10.0 55 15 10 14 0.91 Nitrate as N / Nitrite as N µg/L 15 100% 5.0 361 72 48 95 1.3 Ammonia as N µg/L 14 100% 1.0 8.0 3.7 3.2 2.0 0.54 Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) µg/L 31 87% 100 1189 350 245 237 0.68 Total Nitrogen as N µg/L 31 87% 120 1550 410 280 304 0.74 Dissolved Phosphorus as P µg/L 31 100% 14 603 62 33 106 1.7 Dissolved Orthophosphate as P µg/L 31 81% 10 222 37 20 48 1.3 Total Phosphorus as P µg/L 31 100% 25 665 88 54 116 1.3 Notes mg/L =milligrams per liter. NTU = nephelometric turbidity units. µg/L = micrograms per liter n = Number of samples Total Nitrogen is the sum of nitrate (as N), nitrite (as N), and total Kjeldahl nitrogen Percent Detection = percent of samples that were detected above the reporting limit Table 5 -15. WY 2011 – WY 2014 Martis Creek Tributary Summary Statistics (DST -MC6) Constituent Units n Percent Detection Range Mean Median Standard Deviation Coefficient of Variation Min Max Total Suspended Solids mg/L 25 80% 1.0 34 7.6 6.0 7.8 1.0 Turbidity NTU 25 100% 1.6 68 7.8 3.5 14 1.7 Nitrate as N µg/L 10 50% 10.0 2400 285 19 748 2.6 Nitrite as N µg/L 10 30% 10.0 50 17 10 15 0.89 Nitrate as N / Nitrite as N µg/L 15 100% 2.0 419 96 36 129 1.3 Ammonia as N µg/L 23 65% 2.0 179 33 6.0 39 2.5 Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) µg/L 25 100% 188 1845 550 490 359 0.65 Total Nitrogen as N µg/L 25 100% 204 3814 720 510 753 1.0 Dissolved Phosphorus as P µg/L 25 100% 13 112 35 27 24 0.68 Dissolved Orthophosphate as P µg/L 25 80% 5.0 100 23 10 26 1.2 Total Phosphorus as P µg/L 25 100% 17 820 87 50 156 1.8 Notes mg/L =milligrams per liter. NTU = nephelometric turbidity units. µg/L = micrograms per liter n = Number of samples Total Nitrogen is the sum of nitrate (as N), nitrite (as N), and total Kjeldahl nitrogen Percent Detection = percent of samples that were detected above the reporting limit 5.4.3.2 Statistical Comparisons Trends in concentrations over time are evaluated visually using time-series plots and formally using the Mann-Kendall test method. T-tests are used to determine if two groups of data have a statistically significant difference. The statistical outputs from the trend analyses are included in Appendix A and the results are summarized in Table 5-16 below. All statistical comparisons were conducted on the combined four year dataset. Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan Water Year 2014 Annual Monitoring Report Section 5 · Water Year 2014 Monitoring Results 5-39 Table 5-16. Statistical Trends of Constituents of Concern at Tributary Monitoring Sites TSS Turbidity Total Total Diss. Nitrogen Phosphorus Phosphorus DST-MC1 Decreasing Decreasing Decreasing Decreasing DST-MC2 Decreasing Decreasing Slightly Decreasing Decreasing DST-MC3 Decreasing Decreasing Decreasing Decreasing Decreasing DST-MC4 Slightly Decreasing Slightly Decreasing Decreasing Decreasing DST-MC5 Decreasing Decreasing Decreasing Slightly Decreasing DST-MC6 Decreasing Decreasing Decreasing Note: Mann -Kendall (MK) Trend Analyses used to determine significance. A blank cell signifies no discernible trends. Table 5-16 shows a decreasing trend for almost all constituents of concern at each tributary site except for dissolved phosphorus. There was no discernable trend for dissolved phosphorus at all sites except DST-MC3. To put these results in context, WY 2011 was an above average precipitation year with samples being representative of large runoff events. WY 2012 - WY 2014 were below average in terms of precipitation and discharge which resulted in sample collection from smaller runoff events. Due to the lack of storm events, many small events were sampled during WY 2014 as illustrated in Figures 5-17 through 5-24. Since there have been no major changes within the watershed and management strategies have been similar over the four year monitoring period, the results of the trend analyses are likely reflective of the seasonal precipitation amounts and discharge. This is to be expected as higher discharge has more erosive energy and tends to keep pollutants in suspension for longer periods of time and distances. A continuing dataset is needed to identify and assess any trends caused by development or stormwater management activities in the watershed. In addition to the trend analyses, statistical comparisons (t-tests at the 95 percent confidence level) were conducted for select data groups according to the results presented in Figures 5-25 through 5- 28. The results of these analyses are as follows: TSS concentrations at DST-MC4 (West Martis Creek) were found to be significantly greater than the TSS concentrations at all sites with the exception of DST-MC1 (Lower Martis Creek). Site DST-MC6 (unnamed tributary) was found to have total nitrogen concentrations that were significantly greater than total nitrogen concentrations at the other five sites. Results at DST-MC6 were also found to be significantly less than results from site DST-MC1 for TSS and site DST-MC4 for turbidity. The differences among mean concentrations at all of the tributary sites are not large and, except for the instances presented above, statistical differences cannot yet be discerned with the amount of data collected to date. The number of samples required to determine significance varies greatly for each comparison being performed; statistical differences are more difficult to discern if the mean values between the two groups are similar and there is large variability in the data. Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan Section 5 · Water Year 2014 Monitoring Results Water Year 2014 Annual Monitoring Report 5-40 5.4.4 Tributary Level Discussion The results for each of the tributary sites are discussed further in terms of watershed characteristics and land uses and how they may relate to pollutant concentrations in Martis Creek. Table 5-17 summarizes the tributary level results by presenting color coded mean concentrations for TSS, turbidity, TKN, total nitrogen, and total phosphorus to rank each of the monitoring sites. The table also provides a comparison to the regulatory water quality objectives that have been defined for the mouth of Martis Creek. The results to date indicate that Martis Creek is exceeding the water quality objective for total phosphorus at all monitored locations including those draining from minimally developed areas (i.e. East Martis Creek, DST-MC2). This could indicate that phosphorus transport is naturally occurring within the Martis Creek watershed. The mean TKN concentration at site DST-MC6 (unnamed tributary) exceeds the water quality objective, but the objective was not exceeded at site DST-MC1 (Martis Creek at Mouth). All of the mean total nitrogen concentrations were below the water quality objective. Table 5-17. Tributary Level Site Rankings Based on Mean Pollutant Concentrations (WY 2011 – WY 2014) Sites Jurisdiction Mean TSS (mg/L) Mean Turbidity (NTU) Mean Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) (μg/L) Mean Total Nitrogen (μg/L) Mean Total Phosphorus (μg/L) Martis Creek at Mouth Water Quality Objectives N/A N/A 450 1450 50 Martis Creek at Mouth DST-MC1 County 15 9.9 411 475 78 East Martis Creek DST-MC2 County 11 7.9 324 357 61 Middle Martis Creek DST-MC3 County 8.6 7.8 352 397 79 West Martis Creek DST-MC4 County 16 9.2 374 484 80 Martis Creek (Upstream) DST-MC5 County 11 8.1 350 410 88 Unnamed Tributary DST-MC6 County 7.6 7.8 550 720 87 Notes: A ranking of 1 equals the lowest mean value, a ranking of 2 equals the second lowest mean value, and so on. Ranking of 1 = Ranking of 2 = Ranking of 3 = Ranking of 4 = Ranking of 5 = Ranking of 6 = Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan Water Year 2014 Annual Monitoring Report Section 5 · Water Year 2014 Monitoring Results 5-41 DST-MC1 (Martis Creek at Martis Creek Lake) This monitoring site is located in Martis Creek near Martis Creek Lake, and is downstream of all tributary confluences. The larger flows produced by rain and mixed events at this site (Figure 5-29) produced the highest concentrations at this location relative to the smaller snowmelt induced flows. This site had the highest levels of turbidity and the concentrations of TSS, total nitrogen, and TKN were in the higher range when compared to the other tributary sites. The mean concentration of total phosphorus exceeded the established water quality objective at this location (as it did at all locations) while the TKN and total nitrogen mean concentrations were below the water quality objectives. Figure 5-29 Site DST-MC1 Looking downstream toward Martis Creek Lake Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan Section 5 · Water Year 2014 Monitoring Results Water Year 2014 Annual Monitoring Report 5-42 DST-MC2 (East Martis Creek) This site is located on East Martis Creek approximately 0.5 mile upstream of its confluence with the main stem. The sub-watershed for this site consists of 100 percent pervious, upland meadow and forest with some dirt roads. This site had the lowest mean concentrations for TKN, total nitrogen and total phosphorus. The mean TSS and turbidity concentrations at this site ranked in the middle levels when compared to the other sites. The higher particulate concentrations at this site are somewhat unexpected given the minimal development in the sub-watershed, but may be attributed to eroding dirt roads or other legacy impacts of past disturbances. A photograph of East Martis Creek at the sampling location is presented in Figure 5-30. Figure 5-30 Site DST-MC2 Looking Upstream toward Undeveloped Meadow and Forest Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan Water Year 2014 Annual Monitoring Report Section 5 · Water Year 2014 Monitoring Results 5-43 DST-MC3 (Middle Martis Creek) This monitoring site is located on Middle Martis Creek approximately 250 feet upstream of its confluence with the main stem. The sub-watershed for this site consists of upland forest and meadow with some dirt roads as well as an approximately four mile section of SR 267. This portion of SR 267 includes a steep grade to Brockway Summit where traction sand is applied during winter driving conditions. Caltrans installed a series of new sand traps on SR 267prior to WY 2012 which may have resulted in decreased pollutant loading from their facilities. During larger spring snowmelt flows, the stream sometimes overtops its banks upstream of the monitoring location and a portion of the stream flow bypasses the site; however, this only occurred once in WY 2014 during a large storm event on February 9, 2014. When the stream banks are breached, flows travel along preferential paths formed by previous overflow conditions at this location as shown in Figure 5-31. Most of the flow from the breach returns to the main channel (line of willows in the photo) upstream of the monitoring site, but some flows into the main stem of Martis Creek just downstream of the monitoring location. The mean concentrations of TSS, turbidity, TKN, total nitrogen and total phosphorus are in the mid to lower levels relative to other tributary level sites. Figure 5-31 Middle Martis Creek Bypass Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan Section 5 · Water Year 2014 Monitoring Results Water Year 2014 Annual Monitoring Report 5-44 DST-MC4 (West Martis Creek) DST-MC4 is located on West Martis Creek approximately 0.5 miles upstream of its confluence with the main stem. West Martis Creek originates within the Northstar ski resort and flows through the Northstar residential development and golf course (Figure 5-32). The mean concentrations of TSS, turbidity, TKN, total nitrogen, and total phosphorus were all in the mid to higher levels when comparing this site to the other tributary sites. Figure 5-32 Site DST-MC4 Looking Upstream Towards Northstar Golf Course Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan Water Year 2014 Annual Monitoring Report Section 5 · Water Year 2014 Monitoring Results 5-45 DST-MC5 (Martis Creek) This site is located on the main stem of Martis Creek approximately 100 feet downstream of an unnamed tributary that receives flow from a portion of the Lahontan development and a dirt road (Figure 5-33). This site is located upstream of all major tributary confluences, and its sub-watershed consists of a portion of the Northstar ski resort, upland forest and meadow with some dirt roads, and the developed residential areas of Lahontan Golf Club and Martis Camp. This site has a large sub- watershed and receives more flow than the other tributary sites (except for DST-MC1). This site had mean concentrations of TSS, turbidity, TKN, and total nitrogen that were in the mid to lower range relative to the other tributary sites. However, the mean total phosphorus concentration was the highest of all sites. The high mean total phosphorus value is attributed in large part to a rain event on April 26, 2012 which produced a very high total phosphorus concentration of 665 μg/L, a value much higher than any other monitored event at this site. Figure 5-33 Site DST-MC5 on February 9, 2014 Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan Section 5 · Water Year 2014 Monitoring Results Water Year 2014 Annual Monitoring Report 5-46 DST-MC6 (Unnamed Tributary) This site is located on an unnamed tributary of Martis Creek approximately 100 feet downstream of Martis Lake Road. This site had the lowest flow rates of all of the tributary sites due to its relatively small sub-watershed which consists of commercial development, a portion of the Truckee Tahoe Airport and open meadow areas. After discharging from the developed areas, runoff flows through a meadow where infiltration and treatment can occur as shown in Figure 5-34. This site had the lowest mean concentrations for TSS and turbidity, but it had the some of the highest mean concentrations of TKN, total nitrogen, and total phosphorus. These high mean nutrient concentrations could be attributed to decaying vegetation within the meadow. Figure 5-34 Low Flow Event at Site DST-MC6 Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan Water Year 2014 Annual Monitoring Report Section 5 · Water Year 2014 Monitoring Results 5-47 5.4.5 QA/QC Results Upon receipt from the laboratory, each analytical report was thoroughly reviewed and the data evaluated to determine if the data met the study objectives. Initially, the data were screened for the following major items: A 100 percent check between electronic data provided by the laboratory and the hard copy reports; Conformity check between the chain-of-custody forms, compositing protocol, and laboratory reports; A check for laboratory data report completeness; and, A check for typographical errors on the laboratory reports. After performing the aforementioned data screening, the laboratory was notified of deficiencies, if any, detailing the problems encountered during the initial screening process. Following the initial screening, a more complete QA/QC review was performed, which included an evaluation of method holding times, method blank contamination, and accuracy and precision. Accuracy was evaluated by reviewing MS, MSD, and LCS recoveries; precision was evaluated by reviewing field duplicate, spike duplicate and laboratory sample duplicate RPDs. Data quality assessment was based upon review of holding times, laboratory blanks, laboratory control samples, laboratory duplicates, matrix spikes and matrix spike duplicates, reporting limits, and field duplicates. Based on the data review, none of the constituent results were rejected. Appendix E provides the detailed descriptions of specific items that were evaluated during the QA/QC review process and data that were qualified as estimated due to QC exceedences. 5.5 Stream Gaging Stations: WY 2014 Hydrologic Summary The WY 2014 discharge monitoring results from the Martis Creek gaging stations (GS-MC2 and TURB- MC2) and West Martis Creek gaging station (TURB-MC1) are presented in this section. The gage GS- MC2 was initially installed in November of 2010 (former site GS-MC1) and was relocated in WY 2014 in an effort to avoid beaver activity. Gages at Turb-MC1 and Turb-MC2 were installed in October 2012 as described in Section 4 and were also relocated in WY 2014 to optimize and better characterize conditions within these streams. The discharge at gaging stations on the Truckee River operated and maintained by the USGS (Truckee River above Truckee, USGS 10338000; Truckee River at Boca Bridge, USGS 10344505 is also presented. These data provide complete, near-continuous records (15- minute) of discharge to be used for evaluation of annual peak flows, annual mean flow, daily, monthly, and total annual discharge volumes. In combination with suspended sediment sampling and near- continuous turbidity monitoring, these metrics were used to compute near-continuous records of suspended-sediment loading. 5.5.1 Martis Creek: Site GS-MC2 Martis Creek, Station GS-MC2, captures a contributing area of approximately 34.2 square miles and includes the combined discharge from all branches of Martis Creek. We note that during high flow conditions, this gage may not capture 100 percent of East Martis Creek due to its braided and distributary characteristics, typical of an alluvial fan. Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan Section 5 · Water Year 2014 Monitoring Results Water Year 2014 Annual Monitoring Report 5-48 A preliminary level stage-to-discharge rating curve for Martis Creek Site GS-MC2 was developed during WY 2014 using limited data. The site was not established until January 29, 2014, and therefore no flow measurements were obtained in the first four months of WY 2014. Additionally, an unexplained increase in the water surface elevation of Martis Creek Reservoir during the summer of 2014 caused backwater affects at the site and resulted in erroneous discharge measurements. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers staff were contacted regarding the approximate 1 ft. rise in the reservoir’s water level and stated that no adjustments had been made at the dam outlet. They had also noticed the rise but were unable to identify a cause (USACE, 2014). Due to the data limitations, supplemental data from the Truckee River Operating Agreement (TROA) discharge monitoring program (Martis Creek Reservoir near Truckee, Site ID 150021) was used as a reference to calibrate the MC-GS2 rating curve and as supplemental data for low flow periods when the rating curve is not considered reliable. TROA estimates total inflow to the Martis Creek Reservoir based on water level (reservoir storage) changes and discharge measurements downstream of the dam. The TROA calculated inflows also include other inputs such as groundwater and minor surface flows, in addition to discharge from Martis Creek. These data were used to supplement the direct measurements at this station for the period from October 1, 2013 to January 29, 2014 before site GS- MC2 was installed and from June 2, 2014 to September 30, 2014. Daily, monthly, and annual discharge values are tabulated in Appendix F, daily discharge is presented graphically in Figure 5-35, and a description of the WY 2014 discharge in Martis Creek is presented below. Baseflow in the beginning of WY 2014 ranged from approximately 4-5 cfs, which persisted through the fall and early winter with little variation until a large rain-on-snow event which began on February 8, 2014 resulted in the annual peak flow of approximately 100-140 cfs on February 9, 2014. Additional rainfall or rain-on-snow resulted in slightly lower peak flows on March 7, 2014 at approximately 11 cfs. Daily streamflow receded to a baseflow near 6.0 cfs in late March before spring snowmelt runoff began. Peak snowmelt runoff of approximately 9 cfs occurred on April 2, 2014. Streamflow decreased through the summer months and responded to occasional summer thunderstorms before receding to an annual low flow range of approximately 2-3 cfs. In WY 2014, the annual mean discharge for Martis Creek was approximately 7.9 cfs and the total annual discharge was approximately 3,890 acre-feet. This total discharge volume is considered reasonable compared to the 4,565 acre-feet calculated by TROA. 5.5.2 West Martis Creek: Site TURB-MC1 West Martis Creek (TURB-MC1) captures a small 5.0 square mile watershed that includes portions of Tahoe National Forest, a ski and golf resort, and residential areas. A stage-to-discharge rating curve for West Martis Creek was developed during WY 2014, and daily, monthly, and annual discharge values are tabulated in Appendix F. Daily discharge is presented graphically in Figure 5-36, and a description of the WY 2014 discharge in West Martis Creek is presented below. This station is located on an active alluvial fan characterized by anastomosing (braided) channels and groundwater mounds or springs. The station is located at the property boundary of Northstar Golf Course where the main channel captures 80 to 90 percent of the total discharge in extreme high flow, but captures 100 percent of most daily discharge. Discharge values and associated loading calculations presented in this report represent the total flow emanating from West Martis Creek in WY 2014. Baseflow in the beginning of WY 2014 was approximately 0.45 cfs, which persisted through the fall and early winter with little variation until a rain-on-snow event occurred on January 29, 2014 and Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan Water Year 2014 Annual Monitoring Report Section 5 · Water Year 2014 Monitoring Results 5-49 resulted in a peak flow of 5.7 cfs. A rain-on-snow event which began on February 8, 2014 resulted in the annual peak flow of 33.3 cfs on the same day. Additional rainfall or rain-on-snow resulted in slightly lower peak flows on February 27 (3.51 cfs) and March 6, 2014 (5.62 cfs). Daily streamflow receded to a baseflow near 1.0 cfs in late March before spring snowmelt runoff began. Peak snowmelt runoff of 3.2 cfs occurred on March 29, 2014. Streamflow decreased through the summer months and responded to occasional summer thunderstorms before receding to an annual low flow of 0.2 cfs on August 29, 2014. In WY 2014, the annual mean discharge for West Martis Creek was 0.9 cfs and the total annual discharge was 637 acre-feet. 5.5.3 Upper Martis Creek: Site TURB-MC2 Discharge Martis Creek at station TURB-MC2 captures a 13.75 square mile watershed that includes portions of Tahoe National Forest, a ski resort, several golf resorts, rural residential and open space. A stage-to- discharge rating curve for TURB-MC2 was developed during WY 2014, and daily, monthly, and annual discharge values are tabulated in Appendix F. Daily discharge is presented graphically in Figure 5-37, and a description of the WY 2014 discharge for this station is presented below. This station is located upstream from the confluence with West Martis Creek and in a meadow system with a defined channel characterized by recent incision and some bank instabilities. Flood flows commonly occupy secondary channels and inundate adjacent meadow areas, but were contained by the primary channel in WY 2014. Discharge values and associated loading calculations presented in this report represent the total flow from Martis Creek upstream of West Martis Creek in WY 2014. Baseflow in the beginning of WY 2014 fluctuated between 1.5 cfs and 4.5 cfs in response to colder temperatures and small rain events. A rain-on-snow event that occurred on January 29-30, 2014 increased discharge to approximately 7 cfs and was soon followed by a larger rain-on-snow event which began on February 8, 2014 and resulted in the annual peak flow of 105 cfs on February 9, 2014. Flows receded to nearly 4 cfs before additional rainfall or rain-on-snow resulted in slightly lower peak flows on February 27 (10.6 cfs) and March 6, 2014 (21.4 cfs). Daily streamflow receded to a baseflow near 4.5 cfs in late March before spring snowmelt runoff began. Peak snowmelt runoff of 10.6 cfs occurred on March 29, 2014. Streamflow decreased through the summer months and responded slightly in response to occasional summer thunderstorms, reaching an annual low flow of 0.8 cfs on July 6, 2014. In WY 2014 the annual mean discharge for Martis Creek at this station was 3.3 cfs and the total annual discharge was 2,296 acre-feet. 5.5.4 Truckee River above Truckee (USGS 10338000) Discharge The Truckee River above Truckee station (TURB-MS3) is co-located with a USGS streamflow gaging station (USGS 10338000, Truckee River near Truckee). This station captures streamflow from a 553 square mile watershed that includes the Lake Tahoe Basin. Streamflow is regulated by Lake Tahoe Dam at Tahoe City, California. Below the dam, the Truckee River receives discharge from Bear, Squaw, Silver, Pole, Deep, Deer, and Cabin Creeks. Land uses vary across this large watershed; primary land uses include portions of the Tahoe National Forest, ski and recreation areas, transportation networks, municipalities and rural residential. Discharge for the Truckee River above Truckee is reported by the USGS; data are provisional at the time of this report and subject to revision. Appendix F presents USGS reported daily flow values for WY 2014 at this station, and Figure 5-38 exhibits a hydrograph of preliminary daily discharge. Regulated releases from Lake Tahoe Dam resulted in fluctuating baseflows between 50 cfs and 250 cfs at this station through the early months of the water year and in the absence of significant rainfall. Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan Section 5 · Water Year 2014 Monitoring Results Water Year 2014 Annual Monitoring Report 5-50 Limited snowfall was measured in the early winter, but was followed by several rain-on-snow events that triggered some of the highest peak flows of the year; albeit, significantly less than peak flows from previous years. A rain-on-snow event between January 29 and 30, 2014 resulted in a peak flow of 240 cfs. A rain-on-snow event that began on February 8, 2014 resulted in the annual peak flow (724 cfs) on February 9, 2014, and another rain-on-snow event on March 6, 2014 resulted in a peak flow of 414 cfs on that same day. Winter baseflows receded to roughly 100 cfs before warmer temperatures and additional rainfall triggered the spring snowmelt season. Regionally, the well-below average snowpack resulted in peak snowmelt of only 285 cfs on April 18, 2014, significantly lower magnitude and earlier when compared to past years. Discharge then quickly receded to a low of 153 cfs in late April before increases were observed from regulated releases from Lake Tahoe which maintained discharge at this station between 200 cfs and 300 cfs into late July. In the absence of significant spring and summer rainfall summer baseflows continued to recede. By late September, Lake Tahoe water surface elevations limited regulated releases and streamflow reached an annual low of 12.2 cfs on September 25, 2014. The annual mean flow for Truckee River above Truckee in WY 2014 was 147 cfs with a total annual runoff of 106,135 acre-feet. 5.5.5 Truckee River at Boca Bridge (USGS 10344505) The Truckee River at Boca Bridge station (TURB-TT1) is co-located with a USGS streamflow gaging station (USGS 10344505, Truckee River at Boca Bridge). This station captures streamflow from a 872 square mile watershed. Discharge at this station is regulated by 7 upstream dams on the main stem and tributaries, including 1) Lake Tahoe, 2) Donner Lake, 3) Martis Creek Reservoir, 4) Prosser Reservoir on Prosser Creek, and 5) Boca and Stampede Reservoirs on the Little Truckee River, and 6) Independence Lake. Releases from one or more of these reservoirs/lakes may have more influence on discharge at this station than natural runoff events, especially in below average runoff years such as WY 2014. Land uses vary widely, but are primarily related to practices within Tahoe National Forest, municipalities, rural residential, ski and recreation areas, Interstate Highway 80, and the Union Pacific railroad. Discharge for Truckee River at Boca Bridge is reported by the USGS; data are provisional at the time of this report and subject to revision. Appendix F presents USGS reported daily flow values for WY 2014 at this station, and Figure 5-39 exhibits a hydrograph of preliminary daily discharge. The annual mean flow in the Truckee River at Boca Bridge in WY 2014 was 380 cfs with a total annual runoff of 274,898 acre-feet. Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan Water Year 2014 Annual Monitoring Report Section 5 · Water Year 2014 Monitoring Results 5-51 Figure 5-35 Daily Mean and Maximum Stage Hydrograph Martis Creek, Site GS-MC2, WY 2014 1.00 10.00 100.00 10 / 1 / 2 0 1 3 10 / 1 5 / 2 0 1 3 10 / 2 9 / 2 0 1 3 11 / 1 2 / 2 0 1 3 11 / 2 6 / 2 0 1 3 12 / 1 0 / 2 0 1 3 12 / 2 4 / 2 0 1 3 1/ 7 / 2 0 1 4 1/ 2 1 / 2 0 1 4 2/ 4 / 2 0 1 4 2/ 1 8 / 2 0 1 4 3/ 4 / 2 0 1 4 3/ 1 8 / 2 0 1 4 4/ 1 / 2 0 1 4 4/ 1 5 / 2 0 1 4 4/ 2 9 / 2 0 1 4 5/ 1 3 / 2 0 1 4 5/ 2 7 / 2 0 1 4 6/ 1 0 / 2 0 1 4 6/ 2 4 / 2 0 1 4 7/ 8 / 2 0 1 4 7/ 2 2 / 2 0 1 4 8/ 5 / 2 0 1 4 8/ 1 9 / 2 0 1 4 9/ 2 / 2 0 1 4 9/ 1 6 / 2 0 1 4 9/ 3 0 / 2 0 1 4 Di s c h a r g e ( c f s ) Measured discharge Daily maximum discharge Daily mean discharge Estimated discharge (TROA) Station was installed on January 29, 2014. The discharge record prior to this date was obtained from the Truckee River Operating Agreement (Martis Creek near Martis Creek Reservoir - site ID 150021) which may slightly overestimate discharge at site GS-MC2. Data from the TROA were also used after June 1, 2014 when rising lake elevations began to impact stream stage at site GS-MC2. Note that the flow axis is logarithmic Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan Section 5 · Water Year 2014 Monitoring Results Water Year 2014 Annual Monitoring Report 5-52 Figure 5-36 Daily Mean and Maximum Discharge Hydrograph West Martis Creek, Site TURB-MC1, WY 2014 0.1 1 10 100 10 / 1 / 1 3 10 / 1 5 / 1 3 10 / 2 9 / 1 3 11 / 1 2 / 1 3 11 / 2 6 / 1 3 12 / 1 0 / 1 3 12 / 2 4 / 1 3 1/ 7 / 1 4 1/ 2 1 / 1 4 2/ 4 / 1 4 2/ 1 8 / 1 4 3/ 4 / 1 4 3/ 1 8 / 1 4 4/ 1 / 1 4 4/ 1 5 / 1 4 4/ 2 9 / 1 4 5/ 1 3 / 1 4 5/ 2 7 / 1 4 6/ 1 0 / 1 4 6/ 2 4 / 1 4 7/ 8 / 1 4 7/ 2 2 / 1 4 8/ 5 / 1 4 8/ 1 9 / 1 4 9/ 2 / 1 4 9/ 1 6 / 1 4 9/ 3 0 / 1 4 Di s c h a r g e ( c f s ) Daily maximum discharge Daily mean discharge Measured discharge Ice-corrected discharge Note that the flow axis is logarithmic. Period between October 7, 2013 and January 29, 2014 exhibited ice-affected flows and were corrected using a correlation to Sagehen Creek, near Truckee, California; manual measurements of flow may not correlate exactly for this period Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan Water Year 2014 Annual Monitoring Report Section 5 · Water Year 2014 Monitoring Results 5-53 Figure 5-37 Daily Mean and Maximum Discharge Hydrograph Martis Creek, Site TURB-MC2, WY 2014 0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0 10 / 1 / 1 3 10 / 1 5 / 1 3 10 / 2 9 / 1 3 11 / 1 2 / 1 3 11 / 2 6 / 1 3 12 / 1 0 / 1 3 12 / 2 4 / 1 3 1/ 7 / 1 4 1/ 2 1 / 1 4 2/ 4 / 1 4 2/ 1 8 / 1 4 3/ 4 / 1 4 3/ 1 8 / 1 4 4/ 1 / 1 4 4/ 1 5 / 1 4 4/ 2 9 / 1 4 5/ 1 3 / 1 4 5/ 2 7 / 1 4 6/ 1 0 / 1 4 6/ 2 4 / 1 4 7/ 8 / 1 4 7/ 2 2 / 1 4 8/ 5 / 1 4 8/ 1 9 / 1 4 9/ 2 / 1 4 9/ 1 6 / 1 4 9/ 3 0 / 1 4 Di s c h a r g e ( c f s ) Daily maximum discharge Daily mean discharge Measured discharge Note that the flow axis is logarithmic. Station was relocated 200 feet downstream of its previous location on October 7, 2013 to avoid backwatering effects from a recent beaver dam. Drainage area remains unchanged Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan Section 5 · Water Year 2014 Monitoring Results Water Year 2014 Annual Monitoring Report 5-54 Figure 5-38 Daily Mean and Maximum Discharge Hydrograph Truckee River above Truckee (USGS 10338000), WY 2014. Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan Water Year 2014 Annual Monitoring Report Section 5 · Water Year 2014 Monitoring Results 5-55 Figure 5-39 Daily Mean Discharge Hydrograph Truckee River at Boca Bridge (USGS 10344505), WY 2014. Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan Section 5 · Water Year 2014 Monitoring Results Water Year 2014 Annual Monitoring Report 5-56 5.6 Load Estimates Pollutant load estimates for the Truckee River and Martis Creek watershed are presented in this section. Suspended-sediment loads were calculated using data collected at the near-continuous turbidity monitoring locations, and loads for other constituents were estimated using water quality results from the tributary level monitoring in conjunction with estimated discharge. 5.6.1 Suspended Sediment Load Methods As described in Section 4, suspended-sediment loads were computed using two methods: a) by applying SSC:turbidity correlations to a near-continuous record of turbidity, and b) by using a standard discharge-to-sediment load rating curve and a near-continuous record of discharge. Near continuous turbidity monitoring allows for detection of suspended-sediment events unrelated to changes in discharge. Alternatively, development of standard discharge-to-sediment load rating curves provides a means to evaluate effects of land-use changes or BMPs over time (i.e., years). The 15-minute values of turbidity can exhibit a wide range that is attributed to periodic instrument malfunction or interference. For instance, algal growth on the turbidity probe sensor can occur during periods of warmer water. The instruments are checked and cleaned weekly and data is reviewed carefully to correct erroneous values based on field observations and laboratory measurements. While the discharge records are not subject to similar interferences, the use of discharge-to-sediment rating curves does not detect changes in suspended sediment that are unrelated to increases in discharge (e.g. upstream dry weather disturbances). This section compares and contrasts records of suspended-sediment loads using the two methods (when and where feasible). Note that several of the monitoring sites were relocated before or during WY 2014, and the discharge based load estimates at these locations are based on limited data. The results from the two methods can vary widely and additional data collection and analysis is subsequent years will strengthen these relationships. 5.6.1.1 West Martis Creek (TURB-MC1) Monitoring Results Appendix G is a log of samples collected and analyzed for Suspended Sediment Concentration (SSC) with associated analytical values and computed suspended-sediment loading rates for West Martis Creek in WY 2014. A continuous record of turbidity for West Martis Creek (TURB-MC1) in WY 2014 is provided in Figure 5-40. The gap in data in December is due to maintenance activities during which the probe was removed and replaced due to a malfunctioning wiper mechanism. The turbidity peak due to the large event in early February is clearly shown. Turbidity values generally stayed below 5 NTUs throughout the year, with a slight increase during summer months, possibly due to increased growth of unattached algae. Missing data beginning on November 27, 2014 was due to a turbidity sensor malfunction. The wiper mechanism that cleans the sensor would not remain open to collect measurements after the wiping routine was complete. The sensor was sent to the manufacturer for repair and was reinstalled on December 23, 2014. Suspended-Sediment Loads Data from historical records (WY 2011-WY 2013) and WY 2014 were used to develop the correlation between turbidity and SSC as shown in Figure 5-41. This relationship was subsequently used to compute a record of suspended-sediment load for WY 2014. Data from different years are plotted separately for comparison. Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan Water Year 2014 Annual Monitoring Report Section 5 · Water Year 2014 Monitoring Results 5-57 For WY 2011 and WY 2012, laboratory turbidity and SSC results are presented in Figure 5-41; a turbidity probe was not in operation during this time period. Instantaneous turbidity values from the turbidity probe and corresponding laboratory SSC data were used for WY 2013 and WY 2014. The data provided by the turbidity probe at this station were found to be reliable. A standard sediment rating-curve or discharge-based curve is an alternative method of computing total sediment loads at a station. Figure 5-42 shows the current relationship between instantaneous discharge and suspended-sediment load, computed from samples collected and analyzed for SSC during WY 2014. The relationship was used to compute a daily record of suspended-sediment load in West Martis Creek for WY 2014. Since this site was relocated in the fall of WY 2014 to reduce bypassed flows, there is a limited amount of stream discharge data available (limited to less than 3 cfs) to develop discharge-based sediment rating curves. Additional data collected in WY 2015 across a wider range of discharge will improve understanding of this relationship. A summary of daily, monthly, and annual suspended-sediment loads in West Martis Creek is provided in Form 1 of Appendix G. Results are provided for both load calculation methods (turbidity-based and discharge-based) and are also graphically illustrated in Figure 5-43. In this below-average precipitation year, total annual loads were approximately 9.2 tons (5.8 lb/ac) computed using the turbidity-based method and 10.3 tons (6.4 lb/ac) using the discharge-based method. Approximately 53 percent (4.9 tons) of the turbidity-based total load was measured during a single event that occurred February 8-10, 2014, characterized as a rain-on-snow event. These results may be characteristic of a below-average precipitation year, and a single event may not exhibit a significant portion of the total load in average or wet precipitation years. The total load for this event was only 15 percent (1.6 tons) of the annual load using the discharge-based method. While annual loads were similar between the two methods, the results from this single event illustrate the relatively large differences observed from event to event. Based on the limited data available for the discharge-based method at this time, this method appears to underestimate loads during large events and overestimate loads during low flow and baseflow conditions at this site. Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan Section 5 · Water Year 2014 Monitoring Results Water Year 2014 Annual Monitoring Report 5-58 Figure 5-40 Near-continuous record of turbidity, West Martis Creek (TURB-MC1), WY 2014. Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan Water Year 2014 Annual Monitoring Report Section 5 · Water Year 2014 Monitoring Results 5-59 Figure 5-41 Relationship between turbidity and suspended-sediment concentration, West Martis Creek (TURB-MC1), WY 2014. y = 2.703x 0.7268 R² = 0.4115 1 10 100 1 10 100 Su s p e n d e d S e d i m e n t C o n c e n t r a t i o n ( m g / L ) Instantaneous Turbidity (NTU) West Martis Creek WY2011-WY2012 West Martis Creek WY2013 West Martis Creek WY2014 Note the axes are logarithmic Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan Section 5 · Water Year 2014 Monitoring Results Water Year 2014 Annual Monitoring Report 5-60 Figure 5-42 Relationship between discharge and suspended-sediment load, West Martis Creek (TURB-MC1), WY 2014. y = 0.0315x 1.034 R² = 0.67 0.01 0.1 1 10 0.1 1 10 100 Su s p e n d e d S e d i m e n t L o a d ( t o n s / d a y ) Instantaneous Discharge (cfs) West Martis Creek: WY2014 Note the axes are logarithmic Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan Water Year 2014 Annual Monitoring Report Section 5 · Water Year 2014 Monitoring Results 5-61 Figure 5-43 Daily suspended-sediment load, comparison between turbidity-based and discharge-based methods, West Martis Creek (TURB-MC1), WY 2014. 0.001 0.010 0.100 1.000 10.000 10 / 1 / 2 0 1 3 10 / 1 5 / 2 0 1 3 10 / 2 9 / 2 0 1 3 11 / 1 2 / 2 0 1 3 11 / 2 6 / 2 0 1 3 12 / 1 0 / 2 0 1 3 12 / 2 4 / 2 0 1 3 1/ 7 / 2 0 1 4 1/ 2 1 / 2 0 1 4 2/ 4 / 2 0 1 4 2/ 1 8 / 2 0 1 4 3/ 4 / 2 0 1 4 3/ 1 8 / 2 0 1 4 4/ 1 / 2 0 1 4 4/ 1 5 / 2 0 1 4 4/ 2 9 / 2 0 1 4 5/ 1 3 / 2 0 1 4 5/ 2 7 / 2 0 1 4 6/ 1 0 / 2 0 1 4 6/ 2 4 / 2 0 1 4 7/ 8 / 2 0 1 4 7/ 2 2 / 2 0 1 4 8/ 5 / 2 0 1 4 8/ 1 9 / 2 0 1 4 9/ 2 / 2 0 1 4 9/ 1 6 / 2 0 1 4 9/ 3 0 / 2 0 1 4 Su s p e n d e d - S e d i m e n t L o a d ( t o n s / d a y ) Turbidity-based Discharge-based Note that the load axis is logarithmic Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan Section 5 · Water Year 2014 Monitoring Results Water Year 2014 Annual Monitoring Report 5-62 5.6.1.2 Upper Main Stem of Martis Creek (TURB-MC2) Monitoring Results Appendix G is a log of samples collected and analyzed for SSC with associated analytical values and computed suspended-sediment loading rates at Upper Martis Creek for WY 2013 and WY 2014. A continuous record of turbidity for Upper Martis Creek (TURB-MC2) in WY 2014 is provided in Figure 5-44. Turbidity levels stayed below 5 NTUs for the majority of the year. Peaks associated with winter storm events can be seen during the winter months, with more stable, and slightly elevated, levels during the summer months. Missing data beginning on December 30, 2014 was due to a turbidity sensor malfunction. The wiper mechanism that cleans the sensor would not remain open to collect measurements after the wiping routine was complete. The wiper was removed from the sensor housing on January 6, 2014. Unusable data, due to algal growth on the turbidity probes’ optical sensor, was removed from the dataset beginning on January 24, 2014. The algal growth was removed from the sensor on February 4, 2014. A similar issue was encountered from May 8 to May 15, 2014. Suspended-Sediment Loads Data from historical records (WY 2011-WY 2013) and WY 2014 were used to develop the correlation between turbidity and SSC as shown in Figure 5-45. This relationship was subsequently used to compute a record of suspended-sediment load for WY 2014. Data from different years are plotted separately for comparison. For WY 2011 and WY 2012, laboratory turbidity and SSC results are presented in Figure 5-45; a turbidity probe was not in operation during this time period. Instantaneous turbidity values from the turbidity probe and corresponding laboratory SSC data were used for WY 2013 and WY 2014. During WY 2013, some of the instantaneous turbidity values were found to be erroneous, and laboratory turbidity values were used in these instances. The data from the turbidity probe from WY 2014 were found to be reliable. A standard sediment rating-curve or discharge-based curve is an alternative method of computing total sediment loads at a station. Figure 5-46 shows the current relationship between instantaneous discharge and suspended-sediment load, computed from samples collected and analyzed for SSC during WY 2013 and WY 2014. The relationship was used to compute a daily record of suspended- sediment load in Martis Creek for WY 2014. Additional data collected in WY 2015 will improve understanding of this relationship. A summary of daily, monthly, and annual suspended-sediment loads in Martis Creek is provided in Form 2 of Appendix G. Results are provided for both load calculation methods (turbidity-based and discharge-based) and are also graphically illustrated in Figure 5-47. The total annual suspended- sediment load in Martis Creek for WY 2014 was computed to be approximately 21 tons (4.8 lb/ac) using the turbidity-based method and approximately 12 tons (2.7 lb/ac) using the discharge-based method. Approximately 60 percent (12.3 tons) of the turbidity-based total load was measured during a single event that occurred February 8-10, 2014. These results are reflective of a below-average precipitation year. In average or wet years, a single event may not equate to such a large component of the total load. The total load for this event was only 22 percent (2.7 tons) of the annual load using the discharge-based method, illustrating the relatively large differences observed from event to event. The discharge-based method appears to underestimate loads during large events. Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan Water Year 2014 Annual Monitoring Report Section 5 · Water Year 2014 Monitoring Results 5-63 Figure 5-44 Near-continuous record of turbidity, Martis Creek, TURB-MC2, WY 2014. Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan Section 5 · Water Year 2014 Monitoring Results Water Year 2014 Annual Monitoring Report 5-64 Figure 5-45 Relationship between turbidity and suspended-sediment concentration, Martis Creek, TURB-MC2, WY 2014. y = 0.9127x 1.0464 R² = 0.2895 0.1 1 10 100 0.1 1 10 100 Su s p e n d e d S e d i m e n t C o n c e n t r a t i o n ( m g / L ) ) Instantaneous Turbidity (NTU) Martis Creek: WY2011-WY2012 Martis Creek: WY2013 Martis Creek: WY2014 Note the axes are logarithmic Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan Water Year 2014 Annual Monitoring Report Section 5 · Water Year 2014 Monitoring Results 5-65 Figure 5-46 Relationship between discharge and suspended-sediment load, Martis Creek, WY 2014. y = 0.0067x 1.26 R² = 0.76 0.01 0.1 1 10 1 10 100 Su s p e n d e d S e d i m e n t l o a d ( t o n s / d a y ) Instantaneous Discharge (cfs) Martis Creek: WY2013 Martis Creek: WY2014 Note the axes are logarithmic Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan Section 5 · Water Year 2014 Monitoring Results Water Year 2014 Annual Monitoring Report 5-66 Figure 5-47 Daily suspended-sediment load, turbidity-based method, Martis Creek (TURB-MC2), WY 2014. 0.001 0.010 0.100 1.000 10.000 10 / 1 / 2 0 1 3 10 / 1 5 / 2 0 1 3 10 / 2 9 / 2 0 1 3 11 / 1 2 / 2 0 1 3 11 / 2 6 / 2 0 1 3 12 / 1 0 / 2 0 1 3 12 / 2 4 / 2 0 1 3 1/ 7 / 2 0 1 4 1/ 2 1 / 2 0 1 4 2/ 4 / 2 0 1 4 2/ 1 8 / 2 0 1 4 3/ 4 / 2 0 1 4 3/ 1 8 / 2 0 1 4 4/ 1 / 2 0 1 4 4/ 1 5 / 2 0 1 4 4/ 2 9 / 2 0 1 4 5/ 1 3 / 2 0 1 4 5/ 2 7 / 2 0 1 4 6/ 1 0 / 2 0 1 4 6/ 2 4 / 2 0 1 4 7/ 8 / 2 0 1 4 7/ 2 2 / 2 0 1 4 8/ 5 / 2 0 1 4 8/ 1 9 / 2 0 1 4 9/ 2 / 2 0 1 4 9/ 1 6 / 2 0 1 4 9/ 3 0 / 2 0 1 4 Su s p e n d e d - S e d i m e n t L o a d ( t o n s / d a y ) Turbidity-based Discharge-based Note that the load axis is logarithmic Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan Water Year 2014 Annual Monitoring Report Section 5 · Water Year 2014 Monitoring Results 5-67 5.6.1.3 Truckee River above Truckee (TURB-MS3) Monitoring Results Appendix G includes a log of samples collected and analyzed for SSC with associated analytical values and computed suspended-sediment loading rates at Truckee River above Truckee for WY 2013 and WY 2014. A continuous record of turbidity for Truckee River above Truckee (TURB-MS3) for WY 2014 is provided in Figure 5-48. Turbidity values (corrected) ranged between 0.4 NTU and 4 NTU during baseflow to over 160 NTU during a thunderstorm event on July 17, 2014. During the period of peak snowmelt runoff, turbidity rarely exceeded 10 NTU. Other small spikes in turbidity in the record, unassociated with increases in discharge or sunlight interference, may be associated with upstream disturbances, bank failures, tree fall, or releases from Lake Tahoe. Suspended-Sediment Loads Figure 5-49 shows the current relationship, best described by a ‘best fit’ power function, between turbidity and SSC at Truckee River above Truckee (TURB-MS3). Note that historical data (WY 2002- WY 2003) collected by DWR is also included which shows similar relationships to data collected in WY 2013 and WY 2014. Figure 5-50 shows the relationship between instantaneous discharge and suspended-sediment load, computed from samples collected and analyzed for SSC during WY 2002 and WY 2003 by DWR and WY 2013 and WY 2014 by Balance. While no additional information is provided with historical data, we see similar trends between historical and recent data. Note that more than one load rating curve was identified for these data where appropriate. For WY 2014, a separate and higher rating curve was developed for events observed during rain-on-snow events of January 29-30, 2014, and February 8-9, 2014, as well as a major thunderstorm on July 17, 2014. These data also correspond well with historical data measured in WY 2002-WY 2003. There was no detectable difference or change between WY 2013 and WY 2014 data; therefore, the combined data set was used to develop these rating curves. A summary of daily, monthly, and annual suspended-sediment loads in the Truckee River above Truckee is presented in Form 3 of Appendix G. It provides a comparison between the turbidity-based and discharge-based methods for the partial record when turbidity data were available as well as a total annual load computed using the record of discharge. Results from both methods are graphically compared in Figure 5-51. In WY 2014, suspended-sediment loads totaled 457 tons for the turbidity-based method, and 315 tons for the discharge-based method. The difference in loads calculated between the two methods may be associated with the limitations of empirical methods or the ability of the turbidity-based method to capture discrete events unrelated to discharge or specific conditions during a single event. For instance, using the turbidity-based method, the maximum total daily load of 75 tons was measured on February 9, 2014, while the discharge-based method only computed 41 tons. As in previous years, loading from snowmelt runoff was minimal and measured less than 50 tons for the months of March and April; whereas a single thunderstorm event on July 17, 2014 resulted in 33 tons of suspended- sediment loading. Both of these values were computed using the turbidity-based method. Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan Section 5 · Water Year 2014 Monitoring Results Water Year 2014 Annual Monitoring Report 5-68 Figure 5-48 Near-continuous record of turbidity, Truckee River above Truckee, WY 2014 Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan Water Year 2014 Annual Monitoring Report Section 5 · Water Year 2014 Monitoring Results 5-69 Figure 5-49 Relationship between turbidity and suspended-sediment concentration, Truckee River above Truckee (TURB-MS3), WY 2014. Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan Section 5 · Water Year 2014 Monitoring Results Water Year 2014 Annual Monitoring Report 5-70 Figure 5-50 Relationship between discharge and suspended-sediment load, Truckee River above Truckee (USGS 10338000), WY 2002-2003 and WY 2013-2014. Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan Water Year 2014 Annual Monitoring Report Section 5 · Water Year 2014 Monitoring Results 5-71 Figure 5-51 Daily suspended-sediment load, comparison between turbidity-based and discharge-based methods, Truckee River above Truckee (TURB-MS3), WY 2014. Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan Section 5 · Water Year 2014 Monitoring Results Water Year 2014 Annual Monitoring Report 5-72 5.6.1.4 Truckee River at Boca Bridge (TURB-TT1) Monitoring Results Appendix G is a log of samples collected and analyzed for SSC with associated analytical values and computed suspended-sediment loading rates at Truckee River at Boca Bridge in WY 2013 and WY 2014. A continuous record of turbidity for Truckee River at Boca Bridge (TURB-TT1) for WY 2014 is provided in Figure 5-52. Turbidity values (corrected) ranged between 0.6 NTU and 4 NTU during baseflow to approximately 100 NTU during the peak annual flow of February 9, 2014, a rain-on-snow event. During the period of peak snowmelt runoff, turbidity rarely exceeded 20 NTU. Other small spikes in the turbidity record, were typically associated with thunderstorms or rain events. Suspended-Sediment Loads Figure 5-53 shows the current relationship between turbidity and SSC at the Truckee River at Boca Bridge (TURB-TT1) site for WY 2014. Figure 5-54 describes the relationship between instantaneous discharge and suspended-sediment load computed from samples collected and analyzed for SSC during WY 2013 and WY 2014. At this station, the data are beginning to group by event type; but limited data during these below average precipitation years prevent establishments of strong relationships. For example, low loading rates were measured during spring snowmelt runoff and higher loading rates were measured during rain- on-snow events for similar discharge. Currently, a limited number of data points suggest that even higher loading rates are observed during major thunderstorm events. Such events were observed on July 3, 2013 and August 7, 2014. As such, three separate relationships were developed and applied to compute an annual record of suspended-sediment yield using the discharge-based method. Future monitoring is necessary to increase our understanding of these relationships. Ultimately, suspended- sediment loads are best measured using the turbidity method; and the standard sediment rating curves are secondary for use in the absence of near-continuous turbidity measurements or to evaluate changes in loading rates over time (i.e., years). A summary of daily, monthly, and annual suspended-sediment loads in the Truckee River at Boca Bridge is provided in Form 4 of Appendix G. It provides a comparison between the load computation methods. Results from both methods are graphically compared in Figure 5-55. In WY 2014, suspended-sediment loads totaled 1,625 tons for the turbidity-based method, and 1,353 tons for the discharge-based method. The difference in loads calculated between the two methods may be associated with the limitations of empirical methods or the ability of the turbidity-based method to capture discrete events unrelated to discharge. For instance, a turbidity event was recorded on April 15-17 and totaled 151 tons, while the total load for the same period equaled only 9.7 tons using the discharge-based method. Maximum total daily load of 162 tons (153 tons for discharge- based method) was measured on February 9, 2014 and the result of a rain-on-snow event and peak annual flow. Loading from snowmelt runoff is difficult to assess at this station because of the confounding effects of regulated releases from upstream dams (i.e., Boca Dam, Prosser Dam, and Donner Lake Dam). Separately, a major thunderstorm occurred on August 7, 2014 and was isolated to the Cold Creek watershed, a tributary to the Truckee River (via Donner Creek). The intensity of the storm resulted in significant rilling, gullying and bank failures in the upper portions of the Cold Creek watershed. Suspended-sediment loads on Cold Creek, evaluated for another project, measured 13.7 tons over the duration of the runoff event (August 7-9, 2014). This event propagated downstream to Boca Bridge Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan Water Year 2014 Annual Monitoring Report Section 5 · Water Year 2014 Monitoring Results 5-73 where approximately 13.2 tons were measured. Both values were computed using a near-continuous record of turbidity. Based on these values and the fact that peak streamflow was unusually low for this event, it is assumed that roughly 0.5 tons of sediment was deposited within the channel along Donner Creek and the Truckee River above Boca Bridge. This event highlights the importance of continuous turbidity monitoring and its ability to detect high loading events unrelated to small discharge events. Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan Section 5 · Water Year 2014 Monitoring Results Water Year 2014 Annual Monitoring Report 5-74 Figure 5-52 Near-continuous record of turbidity, Truckee River at Boca Bridge (TURB-TT1), WY 2014. Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan Water Year 2014 Annual Monitoring Report Section 5 · Water Year 2014 Monitoring Results 5-75 Figure 5-53 Relationship between turbidity and suspended-sediment concentration, Truckee River at Boca Bridge (TURB-TT1), WYs 2013-2014. Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan Section 5 · Water Year 2014 Monitoring Results Water Year 2014 Annual Monitoring Report 5-76 Figure 5-54 Relationship between discharge and suspended-sediment load, Truckee River at Boca Bridge (TURB-TT1), WYs 2013-2014. Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan Water Year 2014 Annual Monitoring Report Section 5 · Water Year 2014 Monitoring Results 5-77 Figure 5-55 Daily suspended-sediment load, comparison between turbidity-based and discharge-based methods, Truckee River at Boca Bridge (TURB-TT1), WY 2014. Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan Section 5 · Water Year 2014 Monitoring Results Water Year 2014 Annual Monitoring Report 5-78 5.6.2 Suspended-Sediment TMDL Comparison In this section, the 15-minute, continuous record of discharge and turbidity is utilized to compute suspended-sediment load durations for WY 2014. This enables the comparison of station values to benchmark load limits established under the Middle Truckee River Sediment TMDL. The Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board (LRWQCB) identified 25 mg/L as being at the lower end (most protective) of the range of SSC values to protect juveniles, larvae, and eggs, as well as adult fish. The suspended sediment target is expressed as an annual 90th percentile value; therefore, up to 10 percent of the data could fall above 25 mg/L and still be within the benchmark limit. The 90th percentile was chosen because it allows for seasonal or short-term variability while still fully supporting aquatic life beneficial uses under USEPA policy (Amorfini and Holden, 2008). Benchmark load limits based on the 25 mg/L concentration target were computed using continuous 15-minute discharge at this station (shown in the graphs as a dashed line). Each data point (illustrated by a filled circle) represents an average 15-minute turbidity value, converted to SSC, then to a load and ranked by flow such that low magnitude, high frequency events are plotted towards the right end of the plot and high magnitude, low frequency events are plotted towards the left end of the plot for that particular station. The result is a load duration curve used to evaluate occurrences and percentage of time which loads equal or exceed the TMDL standard for a particular station. For instance, conclusions can be drawn about the load values that are equaled or exceeded half of the time (50 percent). Separately, loads that plot above the benchmark load limit exceed that limit. These loads that exceed the benchmark can then be counted to determine the total amount of time that loads exceed the TMDL benchmark, presented in this context as a percent of the total data set. For example, A 15-minute, near-continuous record of turbidity yields 96 data points in a day, 35,040 data points in a year; if approximately 350 data points plot above the benchmark limit, roughly 1 percent of the data exceed the benchmark limit. We present these metrics for each station below. When considering the results presented below, it is important to note that that WY 2014 was a very dry year and drier than WY 2013, and data from other year types (i.e., wet, average) are needed to assess seasonal variability. Furthermore, it is noted that although results demonstrate that the TMDL target was met in WY 2013 and WY 2014, other assessments, such as the on-going benthic macroinvertebrate bioassessments (Herbst, 2011), suggest continued impairment of aquatic habitat in the Middle Truckee River. 5.6.2.1 Truckee River above Truckee Figure 5-56 illustrates a suspended-sediment load duration curve for the Truckee River above Truckee using continuous 15-minute record of turbidity for WY 2014. For this particular station, the median (50 percent) benchmark limit was roughly 9 tons/day, while loads measured in WY 2014 suggested a median value of roughly 0.4 tons/day (i.e., 50 percent of the data were above and 50 percent of the data were below this value). In addition, only 0.6 percent of the data exceeded the benchmark load limit (i.e., data points higher than the red-dashed line) in WY 2014, far below the allowable 10 percent exceedance. Data that did exceed this limit were mostly short-lived and associated with a rain-on-snow events and the annual peak flow of February 9, 2014 with other minor values associated with summer thunderstorms. 5.6.2.2 Truckee River at Boca Bridge Figure 5-57 illustrates a suspended-sediment load duration curve for the Truckee River at Boca Bridge using continuous 15-minute record of turbidity for WY 2014. For this particular station, the median (50 percent) benchmark limit was roughly 23 tons/day, while loads measured in WY 2014 suggested Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan Water Year 2014 Annual Monitoring Report Section 5 · Water Year 2014 Monitoring Results 5-79 a median value of roughly 3 tons/day (i.e., 50 percent of the data were above and 50 percent of the data were below this value), well below the benchmark limit. Data that exceeded the benchmark load limit (i.e., data points higher than the red-dashed line) totaled only 1.1 percent in WY 2014, far below the allowable 10 percent exceedance. Data that did exceed this limit were short-lived and were also associated with the February 9, 2014 rain-on-snow event and summer thunderstorms. 5.6.2.3 Truckee River at Farad Figure 5-58 illustrates a suspended-sediment load duration curve for the Truckee River at Farad using continuous 15-minute record of turbidity collected by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR). DWR, with the Nevada Department of Environmental Protection (NDEP), operate and maintain a turbidity station at the USGS stream gage station at Farad—the station where the TMDL benchmark limits were established. As discussed further in Section 6, a turbidity-SSC correlation developed at Truckee River at Boca Bridge was used to compute a near-continuous record of suspended-sediment loading in the absence of a station correlation. For this particular station, the median (50 percent) benchmark limit was roughly 28 tons/day, while loads measured in WY 2014 suggested a median value of roughly 2 tons/day (i.e., 50 percent of the data were above and 50 percent of the data were below this value), well below the benchmark limit. Data that exceeded the benchmark load limit totaled only 1.0 percent in WY 2014 and again, well below the allowable 10 percent exceedance. Data that exceeded this limit were associated with rain-on-snow and summer thunderstorms. Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan Section 5 · Water Year 2014 Monitoring Results Water Year 2014 Annual Monitoring Report 5-80 Figure 5-56 Suspended-sediment load duration curve, Truckee River above Truckee (USGS 10338000), Placer County, California, WY 2014. Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan Water Year 2014 Annual Monitoring Report Section 5 · Water Year 2014 Monitoring Results 5-81 Figure 5-57 Suspended-sediment load duration curve, Truckee River at Boca Bridge (TURB-TT1), Nevada County, California, WY 2014. Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan Section 5 · Water Year 2014 Monitoring Results Water Year 2014 Annual Monitoring Report 5-82 Figure 5-58 Suspended-sediment load duration curve, Truckee River at Farad (USGS 10346000), Placer County, California, WY 2014. Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan Water Year 2013 Annual Monitoring Report Section 5 · Water Year 2013 Monitoring Results 5-83 5.6.3 Additional Martis Creek Watershed Loads In addition to the suspended-sediment loads presented above, pollutant loads for additional monitored constituents of concern were calculated for the Martis Creek watershed based on the annual discharge estimates and the results of the discrete tributary level water quality monitoring. In the absence of near-continuous data for these additional constituents, additional assumptions are necessary for this analysis. The annual discharge at each tributary sampling location was estimated based on the measured discharge at the three Martis gauging stations (Sites GS-MC2, TURB-MC2, and TURB-MC3), and the size of each tributary’s sub-watershed as a percentage of the total watershed size. This approach requires the assumption that the precipitation, and runoff response in the tributaries, was uniform over the entire watershed. Although differences in elevation, impervious area, land use, and other factors, likely caused variation in the amount of runoff produced in each watershed, this assumption is considered to be reasonable for the purpose of developing initial, relative annual load estimates. A map displaying the location of each tributary sampling location and their corresponding sub-watersheds is presented in Figure 5-59. The tributary areas and relative discharge volumes for each of the Martis Creek sub-watersheds is presented in Table 5-18 and the pollutant load estimates for WY 2014 are presented in Table 5-19. The total load at each site is dependent on both the mean concentration from sampled runoff events during WY 2014 and the discharge of the tributary. However, since the mean concentrations from tributary sampling are representative of peak flow periods, use of mean concentrations may overestimate the actual loading of each tributary. Additionally, mean concentrations used in these load estimates were developed from datasets with large variation, which also introduces some uncertainty into the final results. To account for this uncertainty, a range of error equal to the coefficient of variation (CV) value was determined for each dataset. Normality tests were performed, and all datasets were determined to be log-normally distributed. Therefore, the error values presented in Table 5-19 are equal to the coefficient of variation (CV) values of each log-normally distributed dataset. The results show that the greatest pollutant loads for WY 2014 were generated within the West Martis Creek (DST-MC4) and Upper Martis Creek (DST-MC5) sub-watersheds indicating the development in these areas is likely contributing to pollutant loads in Martis Creek. The largest yield of TSS was observed at DST-MC4 (8.1 pounds per acre ± 20 percent), the largest yield of total nitrogen was observed at DST-MC5 (0.26 pounds per acre ± 50 percent), and the largest yield of total phosphorus was also observed at DST-MC5 (0.06 pounds per acre ± 35 percent). The total pollutant load in Martis Creek at Martis Creek Reservoir (DST-MC1) was 45 tons for TSS (± 25 percent ), 4,153 pounds for total nitrogen (± 55 percent ), and 878 pounds for total phosphorus (± 35 percent ). To put the results in context, the WY 2014 total suspended-sediment loads at DST-MC4 and DST-MC5 (Table 5-19) were compared to the loads calculated at sites TURB-MC1 and TURB-MC2 using the turbidity-based and discharge-based methods (refer to Section 5.6). The 20 ton TSS load presented in Table 5-19 is similar to the 21 ton load estimate using the turbidity-based method, but this value is substantially higher than the 12 ton load estimate using the discharge-based method. For site DST- MC4, the 13 ton TSS load presented in Table 5-19 is slightly higher than the 9.2 and 10.3 tons computed using the turbidity-based and discharge-based methods, respectively. Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan Section 5 · Water Year 2013 Monitoring Results Water Year 2013 Annual Monitoring Report 5-84 Figure 5-59 Martis Creek Tributary Monitoring Sites and Sub-Watersheds Table 5 -18. Martis Creek Tributary Annual Discharge Estimates Station ID Drainage Area (ac) Percent of Martis Creek Sub-watershed WY 2011 Total Flow (acre-ft) WY 2012 Total Flow (acre-ft) WY 2013 Total Flow (acre-ft) WY 2014 Total Flow (acre-ft) DST-MC1/GS-MC2 21,900 100% 31,563 5,446 7,150 3,890 DST-MC2 4,550 21% 6,558 1,131 1,486 562 DST-MC3 3,000 14% 4,324 746 979 370 DST-MC4 3,200 15% 4,612 796 1,045 637 DST-MC5 8,800 40% 12,683 2,188 3,610 2,296 DST-MC6 200 1% 288 50 65 25 GS-MC1 16,250 74% 23,420 4,041 5,305 NA Note: Bolid italic values represent gauging station measurements. Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan Water Year 2013 Annual Monitoring Report Section 5 · Water Year 2013 Monitoring Results 5-85 Table 5 -19. WY 2014 Martis Creek Tributary Load Estimates Station ID Drainage Area (ac) TSS Total Nitrogen Total Phosphorus Mean (mg/L) Load (ton) Yield (lb/ac) Error (+/-) Mean (mg/L) Load (lb) Yield (lb/ac) Error (+/-) Mean (mg/L) Load (lb) Yield (lb/ac) Error (+/-) DST-MC1 21,900 8.5 45 4.1 25% 0.39 4,153 0.19 55% 0.08 878 0.04 35% DST-MC2 4,550 7.3 5.5 2.4 25% 0.27 411 0.09 70% 0.07 104 0.02 40% DST-MC3 3,000 1.8 0.9 0.6 25% 0.36 363 0.12 65% 0.08 85 0.03 60% DST-MC4 3,200 15 13 8.1 20% 0.46 790 0.25 55% 0.08 139 0.04 35% DST-MC5 8,800 6.4 20 4.6 25% 0.36 2,256 0.26 50% 0.08 488 0.06 35% DST-MC6 200 2.7 0.1 0.9 35% 0.61 41 0.20 15% 0.06 3.8 0.02 65% 5.7 Donner Creek Outfall Modeling Hydrologic and water quality modeling was conducted during WY 2014 to identify and prioritize the observed elevated sediment loads in Donner Creek. Fifteen outfalls and their associated catchments were identified along Donner Creek, and each catchment was delineated using available topographic data, aerial imagery, storm drain mapping, and information collected during site visits. Once the catchments were delineated, the total area of each different land use was estimated using aerial imagery. The characteristics of the defined catchments are summarized in Table 5-20 which includes the total area of each catchment, the area of each land use category, percent imperviousness, flow path length and average slope. The catchments are shown graphically in Figure 5-60. The modeled catchments range in size from approximately 0.6 to 479 acres and have imperviousness values ranging from 16 to 100 percent. The Town owns and maintains the “Secondary Roads” land use category, and Caltrans owns and operates the “Primary Roads” land use category. Several of the catchments consist solely of primary roads including Interstate 80 and Hwy 89. Single Family Residential (SFR), Multi-Family Residential (MFR), and Commercial/Institutional/Communications/ Utilities (CICU) are the other predominant urban land uses. Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan Section 5 · Water Year 2014 Monitoring Results Water Year 2014 Annual Monitoring Report 5-86 Table 5-20. Donner Creek Water Quality Modeling Catchment Land Use Summary (Acres) Cathment ID Total Area SFR MFR CICU Turf Primary Road (Caltrans) Secondary Road (Truckee) Undeveloped EP_4 Total Imperviousness (%) Flow Path Length (ft) AverageSlop e (%) Imperviousness 35% 70% 85% 0% 100% 100% 0 0 -- -- -- DSC-DC1 23 0.0 0% 8.6 38% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 0.9 4% 2.1 9% 11.4 50% 0.1 0.4% 39% 1850 6.3 DSC-DC2 0.6 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 0.6 100% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 100% 675 1.8 DSC-DC3 41 6.1 15% 12.9 32% 12.9 32% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 3.8 9% 5.2 13% 0.0 0% 63% 2575 2 DSC-DC4 21 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 5.4 26% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 1.0 5% 14.8 70% 0.0 0% 27% 2025 7.2 DSC-DC5 12 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 4.0 33% 0.0 0% 8.4 67% 0.0 0% 33% 2825 7.1 DSC-DC6 5.9 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 1.2 21% 0.0 0% 3.2 55% 0.0 0% 1.4 24% 0.0 0% 73% 1125 2.0 DSC-DC7 6.0 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 2.9 48% 0.0 0% 3.1 52% 0.0 0% 48% 1100 3.6 DSC-DC8 479 82.4 17% 0.0 0% 73.0 15% 20.8 4% 7.3 2% 19.4 4% 276.1 58% 0.0 0% 25% 8200 8.4 DSC-DC9 5.3 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 5.3 100% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 100% 950 0.85 DSC-DC10 101 23.8 24% 0.0 0% 7.1 7% 0.0 0% 13.6 13% 7.8 8% 48.7 48% 0.0 0% 35% 3075 14.8 DSC-DC11 5.7 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 5.7 100% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 100% 1325 0.75 DSC-DC12 7.5 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 2.0 26% 1.7 23% 3.8 51% 0.0 0% 49% 1675 2.9 DSC-DC13 2.2 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 1.8 82% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 0.4 18% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 88% 380 2.0 DSC-DC14 230 26.4 11% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 21.8 9% 6.7 3% 175.1 76% 0.0 0% 16% 5750 13.4 DSC-DC15 1.5 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 1.5 100% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 100% 900 1.6 Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan Water Year 2014 Annual Monitoring Report Section 5 · Water Year 2014 Monitoring Results 5-87 As described in Section 4, TSS concentrations were assigned to each land use category using values presented in the Lake Tahoe Total Maximum Daily Load Technical Report (refer to Table 5- 6)(LRWQCB and NDEP, 2010). The catchments and outfalls were then modeled in SWMM using a 30- year (1983-2013) continuous simulation of precipitation measured at the Truckee Ranger Station precipitation gage (Site ID COOP:049043) which is operated by the USFS. The precipitation record was modeled as rainfall only without temperature data to differentiate between snow and rain. Although significant snowfall does occur in the study area, this assumption is considered reasonable for making relative comparisons of results and identifying priority catchments. Pervious surfaces such as undeveloped forestland and turf were assigned soil characteristics consistent with USDA soil surveys for the area. Soils within the study area are typically quick draining with moderate to high hydraulic conductivity values. Therefore, as expected, catchments with large areas of pervious surface or catchments that discharge to infiltration facilities were found to discharge relatively smaller volumes of stormwater annually. The modeled results are presented in Table 5-21 and Figure 5-60. Table 5-21 provides average annual discharge volumes, average annual TSS load, average annual TSS yield, and the average percentage of total annual load to Donner Creek from the modeled outfalls. Table 5-21 also presents calibration factors applied to each outfall to account for upstream BMPs such as wetlands, vegetated channels, and infiltration facilities (as designated by values less than 1) as well as highly erosive areas that potentially increase TSS loads (as designated by values greater than 1). The assigned factors were based on results of grab sampling efforts performed at each outfall and visual observations of drainage conditions. Figure 5-60 displays the results spatially on a map. In this figure, each outfall is color coded according to the total percent of TSS load it contributes to Donner Creek. The results indicate that the greatest TSS loads are being generated along Hwy 89 and West River Street. The highest modeled TSS load is discharged from outfall DSC-DC3 which drains a large portion of the Deerfield Drive development. TSS loads were also found to be high for outfalls discharging runoff from primary roadways. The large upland watersheds (DSC-DC8, DSC-DC10, and DSC-DC14) likely infiltrate a large portion of the annual runoff volume, and the BMPs upstream of these outfalls provide effective stormwater treatment and additional volume reduction. These results are consistent with those provided by Balance Hydrologics for the Truckee River Watershed Council (Hastings and others, 2013; 2014). Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan Section 5 · Water Year 2014 Monitoring Results Water Year 2014 Annual Monitoring Report 5-88 Table 5-21 . Donner Creek Outfall Modeling Results 1 Outfall ID Outfall Treatment Multiplier Catchment Size (Acre) Annual Discharge (10^6 gal) Annual TSS Load (Tons) Annual TSS Yield (Tons/Acre) % of Total Annual Load DC-1 2.00 23 4.07 4.1 0.2 17% DC-2 1.00 0.6 0.36 1.4 2.4 5.9% DC-3 1.00 41 8.38 6.5 0.2 27% DC-4 1.00 21 1.71 0.7 0.03 3.1% DC-5 1.00 12 2.40 3.3 0.3 14% DC-6 1.00 5.9 2.02 4.9 0.8 21% DC-7 1.00 6.0 0.13 0.3 0.04 1.1% DC-8 0.50 479 0.57 0.1 0.0002 0.4% DC-9 1.00 5.3 0.66 2.6 0.5 11% DC-10 0.50 101 1.26 0.5 0.01 2.3% DC-11 0.50 5.7 0.11 0.001 0.0001 0.003% DC-12 0.50 7.5 0.20 0.1 0.02 0.5% DC-13 1.00 2.2 1.33 1.5 0.7 6.3% DC-14 0.50 229 0.34 0.04 0.0002 0.2% DC-15 1.00 1.5 0.91 3.6 2.4 15% Totals 595 20.3 24.0 0.04 100% 1Results are based on a 30-year continuous simulation (1983-2013) of precipitation data collected at the Truckee Ranger Station (Station ID COOP:049043). Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan Water Year 2014 Annual Monitoring Report Section 5 · Water Year 2014 Monitoring Results 5-89 Figure 5-60 Donner Creek Outfall Modeling Results Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan Section 5 · Water Year 2014 Monitoring Results Water Year 2014 Annual Monitoring Report 5-90 This page intentionally left blank. 6-1 Section 6 Discussion The following discussion is based on the integration of results from the various TRWQMP implementation activities conducted to date. The information focuses on new information from the WY 2014 monitoring activities but information from prior years is also presented. Information regarding water quality areas of concern, SWMP performance and the prioritization of the existing TRWQMP elements is also included. 6.1 Integration of the Assessment Data The results of various assessment types were evaluated from a holistic perspective to determine whether they support, or conflict with, one another and if any additional conclusions or observations can be made. The discussions are organized by watershed including Squaw Creek, Bear Creek, Martis Creek, Donner Creek, and Town of Truckee corridor. 6.1.1 Squaw Creek The WY 2014 monitoring activities conducted within Squaw Creek include RAM and bioassessments. WY 2014 was the third round of monitoring under the TRWQMP, with previous monitoring completed in WY 2010 and 2012. RAM surveys are conducted along the downstream one half mile of the creek above its confluence with the Truckee River. The stream has relatively high gradient channel profile in this location with cobbles and boulders covering most of the bottom. Bioassessments are conducted upstream of the RAM location where the creek meanders through a large meadow. The channel is low gradient and is located along a golf course and just downstream of the Squaw Valley village and parking lots. The WY 2014 results of the RAM surveys indicate that an average of approximately 11 percent of each surveyed reach has a channel substrate comprised of fine sediment. This is the lowest percentage measured in Squaw Creek since 2010, with the 2012 survey resulting in the highest average percentage at approximately 25 percent. It is not clear whether these temporal fluctuations are due to changes in sediment loading and/or transport, or if they are simply a reflection of the range of error in the data collection methodology. Temporal fluctuations of approximately 10 percent have also been observed in other surveyed streams such as Martis Creek and East Martis Creek. The Squaw Creek RAM results are comparable to the other streams and the amount of fine sediment substrate is considered typical for the type of channel in the surveyed segment. Observations made in the field during the Squaw Creek bioassessments indicate the predominance of DG sand and finer sediments in benthic habitat areas. Median particle sizes measured during 2014 bioassessment surveys were 5, 10, and 11 mm at the upper, middle, and lower meadow sites, respectively. In addition, particles less than 2 mm in diameter comprised 23, 21, and 20 percent of the bed substrate at these sites, and particles less than 3 mm comprised 40, 26, and 29 percent of the bed substrate at these sites in 2014, respectively. Particles less than 3 mm diameter (%fines+sand), along with D50, are the two physical habitat parameters identified as important indicators of habitat suitability for aquatic life in the context of the Squaw Creek sediment TMDL. The numerical target for D50 is an increasing trend approaching 40 mm or greater, while the target for %fines+sand is a Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan Section 6 · Discussion Water Year 2014 Annual Monitoring Report 6-2 decreasing trend approaching 25 percent or less in the Squaw Creek meadow reach. As described above, both of these parameters were far short of target values in 2014. Historical values are also well below TMDL targets; the mean D50 value for all survey years (2000, 2001, 2010, 2012, and 2014) is 11.5 mm (range 4 to 25 mm) and the mean %fines+sand value for all survey years is 33.2 percent (range 21 to 45%). D50 and %fines+sand values for all years are summarized in Figures 6-1 and 6-2. The numerical target for biological health (representing desired stream integrity protective of aquatic life uses) is a BCS value of 25 or more. Again, 2014 values for Squaw Creek were far short of this target with BCS values of 13, 19, and 13 for upper, middle, and lower meadow sites, respectively. The mean BCS value for all survey years is 15.3 (range 7 to 27). Historically, BCS values have only met or exceeded the target value of 25 during one survey year (two of the three sites in 2012; see Figure 6-3). Improved BCS values in 2012 were presumably the result of better flow conditions and fewer disturbances prior to the 2012 sampling event. Record snowpack during the 2010-2011 winter helped sustain surface flows in Squaw Creek further into the summer and fall than usual in 2011, thereby allowing a more robust benthic community to develop during this period. Record low precipitation during the subsequent mild 2011-2012 winter produced fewer flood disturbances such that the benthic community that was sampled in July 2012 was likely more robust and well-developed than in other years when disturbances were more regular. Eastern Sierra IBI scores for the three Squaw Creek sites generally mirrored BCS values as illustrated in Figure 6-4. IBI scores were poorer at the upper and lower meadow sites (Bio-SC1 and Bio-SC3) and better at the middle meadow site (Bio-SC2). The IBI score for the middle meadow site (Bio-SC2) was relatively good at 84.3 out of a possible 100, which is considered Tier 4 (or Grade ”B”), indicative of conditions supporting regional water-quality objectives as shown in Table 6-1. The higher IBI score at this site resulted from higher taxa richness (particularly Acari richness), lower percent chironomid richness, and lower dominance. Note, however, that the BCS is the site-specific multi-metric index developed exclusively for the Squaw Creek meadow reach and should supersede the Eastern Sierra IBI developed for the broader region; the BCS value at this site was 19 out of a possible 35, well below the minimum target value of 25. The lower meadow site (Bio-SC3) had an IBI score of 71.3, which is considered Tier 3 (or Grade “C”), indicative of conditions partially supporting water-quality objectives for the region; and the upper meadow site (Bio-SC1) had an IBI score of 51.6, which is considered Tier 2 (or Grade “D”), indicative of conditions not supporting regional water-quality objectives. Due to the separate locations in which the RAM and bioassessment surveys are performed, the ability to interpret combined results is limited. No readily apparent trends have been identified, but conditions in the meadow area where bioassessments are performed indicated that Squaw Creek is impacted by excessive fine sediment deposition within the channel. The RAM surveys were conducted in a higher gradient segment, where fine sediment is likely washed through by faster moving flows. During large rain events, a distinct turbidity plume is often visible where Squaw Creek discharges into the Truckee River. Table 6-1. Thresholds for interpreting Eastern Sierra IBI scores (from Herbst and Silldorff [2009]). IBI SCORE TIER / GRADE DESIGNATION RATIONALE > 85.5 5 / A supporting >50th percentile (median) reference condition 80.1 - 85.5 4 / B supporting 25th-50th percentile reference condition 62.2 - 80.1 3 / C partially supporting 5th-25th percentile reference condition 46.0 - 62.2 2 / D not supporting <5th percentile reference condition (impairment level) < 46.0 1 / F not supporting <median of test values in impaired range Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan Water Year 2014 Annual Monitoring Report Section 6 · Discussion 6-3 Figure 6-1 Squaw Creek Bioassessment Median Particle Size (D50) Figure 6-2 Squaw Creek Bioassessment Percent Fines and Sand Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan Section 6 · Discussion Water Year 2014 Annual Monitoring Report 6-4 Figure 6-3 Squaw Creek Bioassessment Biological Condition Score (BCS) Figure 6-4 Squaw Creek and Martis Creek Eastern Sierra IBI Scores Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan Water Year 2014 Annual Monitoring Report Section 6 · Discussion 6-5 6.1.2 Bear Creek WY 2014 monitoring conducted in the Bear Creek watershed consisted of rapid assessment surveys only. RAM surveys were conducted along the downstream one mile of the creek above the confluence with the Truckee River. WY 2014 was the third round of monitoring under the TRWQMP, with previous monitoring completed in WY 2010 and 2012. The WY 2014 RAM results indicate that the surveyed reaches contain an average of 10 percent fine sediment substrate and that the percentage of fine sediment substrate has remained relatively consistent since the time of initial RAM surveys in WY 2010. These results are comparable to other streams and are very similar to the results of Squaw Creek where the stream geomorphology in the surveyed segment is also similar. The overall condition of the Bear Creek channel, along the surveyed portion, appears to be stable. A number of beaver dams in the lower reaches function to slow flows and allow sedimentation. The steam is generally separated from roadways and other development by reasonable buffers. A trail crossing used by a horseback riding company shows some signs of erosion. 6.1.3 Martis Creek The monitoring assessment types conducted within the Martis Creek watershed include RAM and bioassessments (WY 2010, WY 2012, and WY 2014), community level discrete water quality sampling (WY 2011-WY 2014), tributary level discrete water quality sampling (WY 2011-WY 2014), stream discharge monitoring (WY 2011-WY 2014), and near-continuous turbidity monitoring (WY 2013-WY 2014). In Martis Creek, the RAM surveys were conducted along stream intervals that either included, or were near, the bioassessment sites and community and tributary level water quality sampling sites. The RAM results for the Martis Creek watershed from WY 2014 indicate that West Martis Creek contains the highest percentage of fine substrate with an average value of 23 percent. The results of the community and tributary level water quality monitoring tend to support the RAM results in the Martis Creek watershed. The streams with high percentages of fine substrate identified in the RAM were also observed to contain the highest TSS concentrations at their respective tributary sites and in the stormwater runoff discharging to that channel. Site DST-MC4, which is in West Martis Creek, has the highest mean concentration of TSS which correlates with the relatively large percent of fine substrate measured during RAM surveys. Stormwater outfalls in the Northstar community that discharge into West Martis Creek are likely contributing to the higher fine sediment percentages observed in the RAM and elevated TSS levels at site DST-MC4. The pollutant concentrations at discrete community site DSC-MC5 (Aspen Grove) were significantly less than those measured at upstream site DSC-MC4 (Northstar Drive) indicating the effective treatment provided by the wetland area and vegetated channel within the Aspen Grove property. As in previous survey years, 2014 bioassessment results for Martis Creek indicate that the upper tributaries with less disturbance had the highest IBI scores with values of 98.0 and 86.2 out of 100 at the Schaeffer (Bio-MC1) and Upper West (Bio-MC3) Sites, respectively. Both scores are considered Tier 5 (or Grade ”A”) indicative of conditions supporting regional water-quality objectives. These two survey locations also had a low percentage of fine sediment on the streambed. The lower West Branch (Bio-MC4) and lower mainstem (Bio-MC5 )sites had IBI scores of 76.8 and 75.2, respectively, which are considered Tier 3 (or Grade “C”), indicative of conditions partially supporting water-quality Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan Section 6 · Discussion Water Year 2014 Annual Monitoring Report 6-6 objectives. These results illustrate declining conditions in West Martis Creek as the stream flows through the Northstar residential area and golf course. The poorest scoring sites on Martis Creek were middle mainstem (Bio-MC2) and East Branch (Bio- MC6) sites which had IBI scores of 57.9 and 56.3, respectively. These two sites are considered Tier 2 (or Grade “D”), indicative of conditions not supporting water-quality objectives for the region. Only the middle mainstem site (Bio-MC2) in Martis Creek showed a substantial decline relative to previous survey years. Eastern Sierra IBI scores for all TRWQMP survey years (2010, 2012, and 2014) are summarized in Figure 6-4. 6.1.4 Donner Creek The monitoring assessment types conducted in the Donner Creek watershed include RAM (WY 2010 and WY 2012), community level discrete water quality monitoring (WY 2010-WY 2012 and WY 2014), and Donner Creek outfall modeling (WY 2014). For WY 2014, turbidity grab samples were collected from 15 outfalls to Donner Creek in response to preliminary findings of elevated sediment loads in Donner Creek as described in the WY 2013 Annual Report. A hydrologic and water quality model was then developed to identify and prioritize the major sub-basins draining to Donner Creek with respect to their suspended-sediment contributions. The results of the Donner Creek RAM did not indicate high percentages of fine substrate, despite turbid flows that were sometimes observed, likely due to the higher energy flows in the surveyed segment of Donner Creek. As discussed further in Section 6.2.2, the suspended-sediment load in Donner Creek at West River Street (near the Truckee River confluence) was approximately 195 tons in WY 2014, the majority of which originated downstream of the Cold Creek confluence. This equates to approximately 12 percent of the overall suspended-sediment load measured in the Truckee River at Boca Bridge. The Donner Creek outfall monitoring conducted along Donner Creek between Cold Creek and the Truckee River support the finding that relatively large sediment loads are discharged to the creek along this segment. The model results indicate that the highest loads are generated from areas where Donner Creek flows adjacent to Hwy 89 and West River Street. The greatest percentage of suspended- sediment load is discharged from outfall DSC-DC3 which drains a large portion of the Deerfield Drive development. 6.1.5 Town of Truckee Corridor The monitoring assessment types conducted in the Town of Truckee corridor include RAM (WY 2010 and WY 2012), community level discrete water quality monitoring (WY 2010-WY 2012), and near- continuous turbidity monitoring (WY 2013-WY 2014). RAM surveys were conducted during WY 2010 and WY 2012 on Trout Creek and prioritized locations of the Truckee River. The results of the Truckee River RAM did not indicate high percentages of fine substrate despite a very high percentage in Trout Creek and elevated TSS concentrations at the community level monitoring sites discharging into the Truckee River throughout the downtown corridor. Trout Creek had the highest percentages of fine sediment on the channel bottom of all surveyed stream segments, primarily due to impacts from beaver activity. The integration of results indicates that most fine sediment is discharged to the Truckee River from areas of high vehicle traffic where traction sand is used and is then transported downstream where it settles in lower energy reaches downstream and along the channel fringes where velocities are slow. Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan Water Year 2014 Annual Monitoring Report Section 6 · Discussion 6-7 A comparison of daily suspended-sediment loads above and below the Town of Truckee is presented in Figure 6-5 using the records of continuous turbidity for WY 2014. In WY 2014, annual suspended- sediment loading in the Truckee River above Truckee was 457 tons and increased to 1,625 tons downstream in the Truckee River at Boca Bridge. Approximately 59 percent (959 tons) of this suspended-sediment load originated from tributaries including Martis Creek, Prosser Creek, and the Little Truckee River, in-channel bed and bank erosion, and stormwater outfalls within the Town of Truckee Corridor. Only 1 percent (16 tons) of the total suspended-sediment load in the Truckee River at Boca Bridge originated from Trout Creek. 6.1.6 Community Level Water Quality Monitoring Data Integration From WY 2010 to WY 2014, discrete community level stormwater runoff samples were collected from sites located in Placer County and the Town of Truckee. Results from he community level samples that were collected by Placer County and the Town of Truckee from WY 2010 to WY 2014 are presented in Figures 6-6 to 6-9. The figures indicate, when considering all data that on average, the results for TSS and turbidity were highest during mix events and lowest during rain events. The results for total nitrogen and total phosphorus were highest for rain events and lowest for snowmelt events. On average, the Town of Truckee results for all four parameters were greater than the results from Placer County. The differences in results are largely due to the monitoring locations. The Town of Truckee samples were collected from outfalls that had little or no pretreatment. The Placer County samples were mostly collected from sites that had some type of BMP (vegetated swale or infiltration basin) in place upstream of the monitoring location. Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan Section 6 · Discussion Water Year 2014 Annual Monitoring Report 6-8 Figure 6-5 Comparison of daily suspended-sediment loads, Truckee River, above and below Town of Truckee, California, water year 2014. Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan Water Year 2014 Annual Monitoring Report Section 6 · Discussion 6-9 Figure 6-6 Discrete Community Level Water Quality Monitoring TSS Comparison Figure 6-7 Discrete Community Level Water Quality Monitoring Turbidity Comparison 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 DSC-MC4 DSC-MC3 DSC-MC5 DSC-MC2 DSC-TT1 DSC-TT3 DSC-TT2 DSC-TT5 DSC-TT4 DSC-TC2 DSC-MC1 DSC-TC1 County County County County Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Northstar Drive Northstar Aspen Grove Lahontan Brickelltown Bridge St SE Bridge St SW West River Bridge St NW Trout Creek NW Airport Business Park Trout Creek SE TS S - L o g S c a l e ( m g / L ) TSS Comparison - Community Level Discrete Snowmelt Mix Rain Mean Site ID Jurisdiction Location 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 DSC-MC4 DSC-MC3 DSC-MC5 DSC-MC2 DSC-TT1 DSC-MC1 DSC-TC1 County County County County Town Town Town Northstar Drive Northstar Aspen Grove Lahontan Brickelltown Airport Business Park Trout Creek SE Tu r b i d i t y - L o g S c a l e ( N T U ) Turbidity Comparison - Community Level Discrete Snowmelt Mix Rain Mean Site ID Jurisdiction Location Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan Section 6 · Discussion Water Year 2014 Annual Monitoring Report 6-10 Figure 6-8 Discrete Community Level Water Quality Monitoring Total Nitrogen Comparison Figure 6-9 Discrete Community Level Water Quality Monitoring Total Phosphorus Comparison 0.01 0.1 1 10 DSC-MC4 DSC-MC3 DSC-MC5 DSC-MC2 DSC-TT1 DSC-TC1 DSC-MC1 County County County County Town Town Town Northstar Drive Northstar Aspen Grove Lahontan Brickelltown Trout Creek SE Airport Business Park To t a l N i t r o g e n - L o g S c a l e ( m g / L ) Total Nitrogen Comparison - Community Level Discrete Snowmelt Mix Rain Mean Site ID Jurisdiction Location Site ID Jurisdiction Location 0.01 0.1 1 10 DSC-MC4 DSC-MC3 DSC-MC2 DSC-MC5 DSC-TT1 DSC-TC1 DSC-MC1 County County County County Town Town Town Northstar Drive Northstar Lahontan Aspen Grove Brickelltown Trout Creek SE Airport Business Park To t a l P h o s p h o r u s - L o g S c a l e ( m g / L ) Total Phosphorus Comparison - Community Level Discrete Snowmelt Mix Rain Mean Site ID Jurisdiction Location Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan Water Year 2014 Annual Monitoring Report Section 6 · Discussion 6-11 6.2 Suspended-Sediment Data Integration This section presents suspended-sediment data that has been collected within the project area for other studies and compares them to the results of the near-continuous turbidity stations in the Truckee River (TURB-MS3 and TURB-TT1). This includes comparisons to data collected from the Truckee River at Farad and data collected from Truckee River tributaries within the Town of Truckee. 6.2.1 Comparison to Truckee River at Farad A near-continuous record of turbidity was available for the Truckee River at Farad in WY 2014, located downstream of Boca Bridge near the Nevada state line. These data were downloaded from DWR and are provisional. Unfortunately, samples collected for turbidity and SSC analysis were not available over a wide range of discharges and, therefore, a correlation between turbidity and SSC was augmented with turbidity and SSC data measured at Boca Bridge. Together, these data were used to convert the available record of turbidity at Farad to an estimated record of suspended-sediment loads. Form 5 of Appendix E shows the daily and monthly values for suspended-sediment loads for Truckee River at Farad. Figure 6-2 illustrates daily suspended-sediment loads for three stations along the Truckee River in WY 2014 based on records of near-continuous turbidity at all three stations. In WY 2014, total annual suspended-sediment loads above Truckee (USGS 10338000) were measured to be 457 tons, while 1,625 tons were measured further downstream at Boca Bridge (USGS 10344505), and further downstream at Farad (USGS 10346000) was estimated to 2,169 tons. These values may be better interpreted when normalized by watershed area to evaluate suspended- sediment yields (tons per square mile) for each station. For instance, suspended-sediment yield for the Truckee River above Truckee was 9.9 tons per square mile (tons/mi 2), excluding the Lake Tahoe Basin, while downstream the yield roughly doubled to 19.7 tons/mi 2 at Boca Bridge, and further downstream the yield was slightly less at 15.2 tons/mi 2 (see Fig. 6-10). The increased yield measured at Boca Bridge may be attributed to the urbanized land uses along the Truckee River through the Town of Truckee Corridor. However, variables other than land-use can influence suspended-sediment loading, such as geology and precipitation. Changes in geology may be a controlling factor for loading downstream. The Truckee River originates in glaciated terrains of both volcanic and granitic geology and passes through outwash terraces and alluvium and into a largely bedrock controlled canyon. Hill and others (1989) measured 3.5 to 25 times greater suspended-sediment yields in tributaries draining glaciated terrains relative to non- glaciated terrains in the Tahoe Basin. The Truckee River between Boca Bridge and Farad becomes, to some degree, less influenced by glaciated terrains and landforms and more influenced by bedrock which may be reflected in the relative changes in yields seen between the monitoring stations. Precipitation also changes between these stations and becomes increasingly drier in the downstream direction. Less rainfall, snowfall and associated runoff may also translate into less frequent loading events. Some discrete events registered at Farad and absent from upstream stations may be the result of thunderstorms over isolated portions of the lower Middle Truckee River. In summary, due to the uncertainty associated with variables that influence suspended-sediment loading, only general comparisons of loading between these stations can be stated at this time. The importance of these data is that when collected over longer time periods, trends can be evaluated and spatial and temporal variability can be better defined. Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan Section 6 · Discussion Water Year 2014 Annual Monitoring Report 6-12 Figure 6-10 Daily suspended-sediment load based on a continuous record of turbidity, Middle Truckee River at three stations, Placer and Nevada Counties, California water year 2014. Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan Water Year 2014 Annual Monitoring Report Section 6 · Discussion 6-13 6. 2.2 Comparison to Middle Truckee River Tributaries Because an increase was measured in suspended-sediment yield through the Town of Truckee corridor, it is logical to consider the sources of additional sediment. Contributions of suspended- sediment loads from tributaries to the Truckee River through the Town of Truckee corridor, including Donner Creek, Cold Creek, and Trout Creek, were measured by Balance Hydrologics for the Truckee River Watershed Council (TRWC) during the same years when suspended-sediment loads were measured on the Truckee River (WY 2013-WY 2014). Loads were computed using near-continuous records of turbidity with the exception of Donner Creek, where loads are computed using the discharge-based method. In WY 2014, the difference between loads measured above Truckee (457 tons) and below Truckee (1,625 tons) is roughly 1,168 tons. Load contributions from Donner/Cold Creek and Trout Creek totaled approximately 208 tons and suggest that an additional, roughly 960 tons may originate within the Town of Truckee Corridor and/or from dammed tributaries (i.e., Prosser Creek, Martis Creek, and Little Truckee River) in WY 2014. Alternatively, these data can be interpreted as a percent of the total load measured in the Truckee River at Boca Bridge. In Figure 6-11, the total pie-charts are equal to 3,104 tons or that measured in WY 2013 at the Truckee River at Boca Bridge station and 1,625 tons as measured in WY 2014 at the same station. These total loads can be divided into “portions” from other upstream stations. A measureable portion of these loads (42 percent in WY 2013, 28 percent in WY 2014) can originate from upstream (above Truckee) sources such as Bear Creek, Squaw Creek, Silver Creek, Pole Creek, Deep Creek, Deer Creek, Cabin Creek and the Highway 89 corridor, as measured at the USGS station above Truckee (USGS 10338000). Donner and Cold Creeks contributed 26 percent of the load measured at Boca Bridge in WY 2013 and 12 percent in WY 2014, as measured at the USGS station at Highway 89 (USGS 10338700), while Trout Creek was a very minor portion, roughly 1 percent of the total load at Boca Bridge in both years. The remaining portion of the load is unmeasured (31 percent in WY 2013, 59 percent in WY 2014) and is likely from combined sources which may include: 1) in- channel sources such as bed and bank erosion; 2) point sources such as urban outfalls; 3) non-point sources such as sheet wash and upland erosion; and 4) ungauged tributaries in the Town Corridor which include the Little Truckee River, Prosser Creek, and Martis Creek, all of which are also dammed tributaries. Similar to comparison of loads within the mainstem of the Truckee River, loads were compared between tributaries by normalizing loads by watershed area to develop suspended-sediment yields. In this analysis it was assumed that contributions of suspended-sediment from Lake Tahoe, Donner Lake, Boca Reservoir, Prosser Reservoir, and Martis Creek Reservoir are minor as the result of sediment trapping by the dams, and therefore, areas above these dams are excluded from load calculations. However, these conditions have not been verified. Figure 6-12 exhibits suspended-sediment yields for the Truckee River, above and below the Town of Truckee, and two main tributaries, Trout Creek and Donner/Cold Creeks. In WY 2014, results suggest that yield in the mainstem Truckee River above Truckee (9.9 tons/square mile) was exceeded by Donner/Cold Creek which contributed 13.2 tons/square mile. Donner/Cold Creek is a much smaller area than the areas draining to the Truckee River above this confluence, but differs in land-use types. Much of the lower portions of Donner Creek watershed are within the Town of Truckee and are characterized by urban land uses including many hydrologically connected impervious surfaces that drain to Donner Creek through a constructed stormwater system. Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan Section 6 · Discussion Water Year 2014 Annual Monitoring Report 6-14 Balance Hydrologics maintained an additional sediment monitoring station on Cold Creek, a tributary to Donner Creek. Previous studies (River Run Consulting, 2007) suggested that Cold Creek, although non-urbanized, may be a significant source of sediment to the Truckee River from legacy impacts (i.e., road building for timber harvest, drainage modifications from Union Pacific Railroad). A discharge and sediment monitoring station on Cold Creek allowed for a ‘nested’ approach to further evaluate suspended-sediment yields. Figure 6-13 shows a map of the Donner/Cold Creek watershed with locations of monitoring stations and the contributing areas between them. Total suspended-sediment loads were computed for each station in WY 2014. The positive difference in loads between each station was assumed to originate from the contributing areas between the stations. The results suggests a relatively low yield from Cold Creek (4.8 tons/square mile), but a higher yield existed for Donner Creek below Cold Creek (54 tons/square mile). Again, it is believed that the higher yield may be related to the fact that Donner Creek, below Cold Creek, receives runoff from an urbanized area which is well connected to the creek via a storm drainage network. Non-point sources from urbanized areas within Truckee are also likely to contribute to the increased suspended-sediment yield in the Truckee River at Boca Bridge. Water quality modeling conducted for outfalls along Donner Creek between Cold Creek and the Truckee River support the finding that relatively large sediment loads are discharged to the creek along this segment. The model results indicate that the highest loads are generated from areas where Donner Creek flows adjacent to Hwy 89 and West River Street. The greatest percentage of suspended- sediment load is discharged from outfall DSC-DC3 which drains a large portion of the Deerfield Drive development. The large upland watersheds above the Gateway area of Truckee likely infiltrate a substantial portion of the annual runoff volume prior to discharging to the fragmented wetland area between Gateway and Interstate 80. Here, stormwater flows receive significant additional treatment in the wetland area where additional infiltration and evapotranspiration also further reduce runoff volumes. During the monitored events in WY 2014, the outfalls to Donner Creek from these upper watersheds were observed to discharge significantly lower volumes than the outfalls draining highly impervious watersheds with less effective BMPs. Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan Water Year 2014 Annual Monitoring Report Section 6 · Discussion 6-15 Figure 6-11 Suspended-sediment load, Truckee River at Boca Bridge, near Truckee California, water years 2013 and 2014. Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan Section 6 · Discussion Water Year 2014 Annual Monitoring Report 6-16 Figure 6-12 Total annual suspended-sediment yields, Middle Truckee River and Tributaries, Truckee, California, water year 2014. Truckee River above Truckee: 46 sq. mi Donner Creek at West River St: 15.2 sq. mi Trout Creek at Donner Pass Rd: 4.6 sq. mi Truckee River below Truckee: 82.4 sq. mi Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan Water Year 2014 Annual Monitoring Report Section 6 · Discussion 6-17 Figure 6-13 ‘Nested’ Total Annual Suspended-Sediment Yields, Donner/Cold Creek, Truckee, California, Water Year 2014. (3.5 mi 2) (0.4 mi 2) (12.2 mi 2) Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan Section 6 · Discussion Water Year 2014 Annual Monitoring Report 6-18 6. 2.3 Turbidity Based Comparison to Previous Years California Department of Water Resources (DWR) conducted (partial) near-continuous turbidity monitoring in water years 2002, 2003, 2006, 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013 at the USGS discharge gaging station on the Truckee River near Truckee (USGS 10338000) also identified as TURB-MS3 in this report. These data were collected intermittently for periods ranging between 97 days and 330 days; therefore, total annual loads could not be computed. The historical partial records of suspended- sediment loads were computed using the relationship between instantaneous turbidity (NTU) and SSC established for this station using TRWQMP data collected by Balance Hydrologics in WY 2013 and WY 2014. This approach assumes no change in this relationship over time. Daily discharge hydrographs and suspended-sediment loads for periods when turbidity were available are illustrated for WY 2002, WY 2003, WY 2006, WY 2010, WY 2011, WY 2012, WY 2013, and WY 2014 in Appendix F and summarized in Table 6-21. DWR discontinued collection of turbidity at their stations each year, typically on the onset of winter, due to access limitations and effects of ice in the channel. Monitoring would typically resume in the spring between April and May and continue through the end of the water year (September 30). In many cases, turbidity data was not collected during winter rain-on-snow events which are typically responsible for significant suspended-sediment loading to the Truckee River. The effects of these data gaps are apparent in Table 6-2, and the much larger suspended-sediment loads and yields calculated for WY 2006 when DWR did capture the annual peak flood which occurred on December 31, 2005 as a rain-on-snow event. The effects of seasonal variability can be seen in years where similar time periods were monitored such as WY 2011, WY 2012 and WY 2013 where loads and yields are reflective of the annual precipitation totals. The evaluation of historical data suggests that interpretation of suspended-sediment loading requires an understanding of event types and annual precipitation totals. A long-term dataset that includes data from similar water years and monitoring periods will be needed to identify and characterize changes in Truckee River suspended sediment load that are due to development, stormwater management or restoration activities in the contributing watershed. 1 Instrument calibration, data review, verification, and QA/QC for historical turbidity data are carried out by California DWR. Data reported by DWR have not been independently reviewed for accuracy. Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan Water Year 2014 Annual Monitoring Report Section 6 · Discussion 6-19 Table 6-2. Comparison of Suspended-Sediment Loads and Yields from Previous Years, Truckee River above Truckee (TURB-MS1) Water Year Agency or Company Percent of water year NTU measured Period(s) NTU measured Suspended- sediment load during measured period Annual (partial) suspended- sediment yield Total annual flow volume Annual peak flow, event type Comments WY % MM/DD/YY tons tons/1,000 ac-feet ac-feet 2002 DWR 27 6/26/03- 9/30/03 131 2 159,668 snowmelt No major rain events in WY2002, annual peak flow occurred as snowmelt runoff; NTU not measured during peak snowmelt 2003 DWR 90 10/1/02- 9/3/03 2,255 18 138,195 snowmelt WY2003 registered some minor rain and rain-on- snow events, but their magnitudes were minor; annual peak flow occurred as peak snowmelt runoff 2006 DWR 27 10/26/05 – 1/1/06; 3/8/06 – 4/8/06 12,190 193 231,766 rain-on-snow NTU record captured several rain and/or rain-on- snow events, including annual peak flow; this record documents the importance of capturing rain-on-snow events relative to loads 2010 DWR 55 3/16/10 – 9/30/10 772 15 109,851 snowmelt WY2009-WY2010 were very dry years with daily mean flows less than 20 cfs during the fall; 2011 DWR 50 10/2/10 – 11/2/10; 5/3/11 – 9/30/11 1,853 28 188,635 rain NTU record captured the peak event and a significant portion of the snowmelt hydrograph. 2012 DWR 54 10/1/11 – 11/15/11; 5/3/12 – 9/30/12 307 6 180,693 rain-on-snow NTU record did not capture the annual peak flow or peak snowmelt runoff 2013 Balance Hydrologics 81 10/1/12 – 11/7/12; 1/18/13 – 9/30/13 453 3 165,142 rain-on-snow NTU record did not capture annual peak storm (rain-on- snow) event; Town of Truckee Station was established on January 18, 2013 2014 Balance Hydrologics 100 10/1/13— 9-30-14 457 4.3 106,135 rain-on-snow WY2014 was an extremely dry year with significantly below average snowpack Notes: NTU: turbidity as nephelometric turbidity units Suspended-sediment loads are partial annual loads for the periods reported Suspended-sediment loads (tons/day) are calculated by converting a record of turbidity into suspended sediment concentration (mg/L) and multiplying by instantaneous discharge (cfs) and a conversion factor of 0.0027 Partial and annual flow volume and peak flow data are provided by USGS for the station: Truckee River near Truckee (USGS 10338000) Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan Section 6 · Discussion Water Year 2014 Annual Monitoring Report 6-20 6.2.4 Comparison of Discharge-Based Sediment Rating Curves to Previous Years Changes in suspended-sediment concentration or loading with time may result from landscape processes or human disturbances in a watershed (Warrick and Rubin, 2007), so suspended-sediment rating curves (discharge-based) are perhaps the best tool for establishing sediment baselines prior to BMP implementation and for assessing the change in fine sediment supply as BMPs, restoration activities, or other watershed management actions are implemented (Hecht, 2008). As sediment supply within a watershed diminishes, suspended-sediment concentration at a given discharge will also diminish, and a sediment rating curve shift to the right would be observed. Therefore, tracking changes in the relationship between suspended-sediment transport and discharge (as shown by ‘shifts’ in the suspended sediment rating curves) allows for an evaluation of BMP effectiveness or improvements relative to historical conditions at a cumulative watershed scale. For this analysis, historical grab samples collected and analyzed for SSC by the Desert Research Institute (DRI) (Dana et al, 2004) and corresponding USGS-reported instantaneous discharge values were used for the Truckee River above Truckee (Figure 6-14). It should be noted that while the historical data (WY 2002-WY 2003) include 27 samples (n = 27) over a range of flows and during various event types, such as snowmelt or thunderstorm runoff, they are limited to discharge values less than 600 cfs, a magnitude flood that is typically less than the annual flood for this station. Significant scatter is apparent in the historical data but some scatter may be explained by event type. For instance, snowmelt runoff appears to result in less loading than rain-on-snow or thunderstorm events, and separate suspended-sediment rating curves may apply. Data collected in WY 2013 and WY 2014 (n = 22) and corresponding USGS-reported instantaneous discharge values for the Truckee River above Truckee are included on the same graph in Figure 6-14. These data also show significant scatter that may be explained by event type. However, at this time, a shift in the rating curve cannot be detected when comparing the historical and recent data sets. Additional data collection, especially at higher flows or during years with average or above average precipitation, may help elucidate whether detectable and statistically significant rating curve shifts have taken place; these potential trends should continue to be evaluated and reported as the monitoring program continues . Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan Water Year 2014 Annual Monitoring Report Section 6 · Discussion 6-21 Figure 6-14 Relationship between discharge and suspended-sediment load, Truckee River above Truckee, California, water years 2002-2003, and water years 2013-2014 Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan Section 6 · Discussion Water Year 2014 Annual Monitoring Report 6-22 6.3 Water Quality Areas of Concern After five years of monitoring, the following areas are identified as areas of the highest concern for water quality: Truckee River (Town Corridor): Suspended-sediment results indicate between 30 percent and 60 percent of the total suspended-sediment load being carried by the Truckee River at the Boca Bridge originates from watershed areas draining the Town of Truckee corridor. In addition to the Truckee downtown areas, this very large watershed includes Martis Creek, Glenshire Creek, Prosser Creek, and the Little Truckee River; all of which are dammed tributaries that may also contribute to suspended-sediment loads. Previous RAM results from the Truckee River main stem do not indicate high percentages of fine substrate despite a very high percentage in Trout Creek. Previous community level sampling indicates elevated TSS concentrations in stormwater runoff discharging into the Truckee River from the downtown area. Based on the data collected to date, the integrated results indicate significant amounts of sediment are discharged to the Truckee River from urban areas, and then transported downstream to slower moving areas where deposition occurs. Donner Creek: Suspended-sediment measurements indicate that Donner Creek had the highest suspended-sediment yield (tons/sq. mile), when compared to other Truckee River tributaries monitored in WY 2014. The area within the Town of Truckee that drains to Donner Creek is small, but also urbanized, and includes high traffic roadways such as Highway 89 and Interstate 80. Impervious surfaces drain to Donner Creek through a large network of storm drains that transport particulates materials that are measured as suspended-sediment in Donner Creek. Both the Donner Creek stormwater outfall modeling as well as suspended sediment monitoring carried out by Balance Hydrologics for the Truckee River Watershed Council identified highly impervious sub-watersheds, such as Hwy 89, West River Street, and the Deerfield development, as the primary contributors of suspended-sediment into Donner Creek. Martis Creek: Martis Creek is separated from the Truckee River by a dam which allows much of the sediment and sediment associated pollutants to be removed prior to discharging to the Truckee River. Pollutant loads into Martis Creek Reservoir are elevated and the stream does not meet its water quality objective for total phosphorus. This is likely a combined effect of development related issues in the watershed including roadway shoulder erosion near creek crossings, ski run soil disturbance, commercial and residential construction, roadway abrasives and more. Although the dam in Martis Creek Reservoir likely decreases pollutant loading to the Truckee River, it could represent problems to the reservoir in terms of decreased storage capacity and excessive growth of aquatic plants. Also, if the Martis Dam were removed (i.e. due to the ongoing concerns of safety) a clear increase in pollutant loading to the Truckee River would likely occur. As in previous survey years, 2014 bioassessment results for Martis Creek indicate that the upper tributaries with less disturbance had the highest IBI scores with values of 98.0 and 86.2 out of 100 at the Schaeffer and Upper West Martis Sites, respectively. Both scores are considered Tier 5 (or Grade ”A”) indicative of conditions supporting regional water-quality Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan Water Year 2013 Annual Monitoring Report Section 6 · Discussion 6-23 objectives. The lower West Branch and lower mainstem sites had IBI scores of 76.8 and 75.2, respectively, which are considered Tier 3 (or Grade “C”), indicative of conditions partially supporting water-quality objectives. These results illustrate declining conditions in West Martis Creek as the stream flows through the Northstar residential area and golf course. The poorest scoring sites on Martis Creek were middle mainstem and East Branch sites which had IBI scores of 57.9 and 56.3, respectively. These two sites are considered Tier 2 (or Grade “D”), indicative of conditions not supporting water-quality objectives for the region. Only the middle mainstem site) in Martis Creek showed a substantial decline relative to previous survey years. Squaw Creek: Bioassessment results for water year 2014 were far short of the TMDL target (BCS of 25) with BCS values of 13, 19, and 13 for upper, middle, and lower meadow sites, respectively. The mean BCS value for all survey years is 15.3 (range 7 to 27). Historically, BCS values have only met or exceeded the target value of 25 during one survey year (two of the three sites in 2012). Particles less than 3 mm diameter (%fines+sand), along with D50, are the two physical habitat parameters identified as important indicators of habitat suitability for aquatic life in the context of the Squaw Creek sediment TMDL. The numerical target for D50 is an increasing trend approaching 40 mm or greater, while the target for %fines+sand is a decreasing trend approaching 25 percent or less in the Squaw Creek meadow reach. Both of these parameters were far short of target values in 2014; historical values are also well below TMDL targets. 6.4 Effectiveness of MS4 Permit Activities The effectiveness of implementing some of the permit related stormwater management activities can be evaluated through the comparisons presented herein. Because this is only the fifth year of long- term implementation of the TRWQMP and relatively little changes to the watershed have occurred, spatial comparisons are most appropriate at this time. The temporal water quality trends identified in this report are likely related to differences in precipitation amounts rather than specific management actions and more data is required to evaluate their significance. The WY 2014 results from community level discrete sampling and Donner Creek outfall modeling do demonstrate the effectiveness of wetland and riparian systems in treating runoff and reducing flow volumes. Also, previous community level monitoring has shown that permanent stormwater treatment BMPs present in some of the drainage systems provide clear benefits. When compared to other sites, the water quality at the treated sites is clearly improved with respect to all the monitored pollutants in almost every runoff event. Placer County should consider updating their outreach strategy for contracted maintenance entities such as the Northstar Community Services District (NCSD). According to the NCSD website, NCSD performs snow removal and sanding at a rate 3-4 times greater than that provided by Placer County. While the actual sand application rates are unknown, reducing sand application rates and total sand volumes would likely provide water quality benefits. Additional benefits may be associated with the use of clean sand with smaller fine particle fractions. These fine particles and associated pollutants are easily entrained in stormwater runoff and don’t readily settle out of the water column. Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan Section 6 · Discussion Water Year 2014 Annual Monitoring Report 6-24 6.5 Prioritization of Existing TRWQMP Elements The TRWQMP is currently being implemented as planned. Overall, monitoring activities should be continued per the guidance in the TRWQMP and the adaptive management based modifications that have been made to the program over the initial five years of implementation. There is a continued need to develop more comprehensive and robust datasets that will help to identify specific areas of concern and evaluate stormwater management program performance. Specific recommendations for each assessment type are provided in Section 8. 7-1 Section 7 Fiscal Summary This section provides a summary of costs incurred by Placer County and the Town of Truckee over the initial five years of TRWQMP implementation as described in this report. Costs to complete the Year 1 through Year 5 activities are presented in Table 7-1. Table 7 -1. Year 1 through 5 Implementation Costs Placer County Town of Truckee Administrative Year 1 $21,000 $10,000 Year 2 $26,000 $12,000 Year 3 $25,000 $11,000 Year 4 $25,000 $11,000 Year 5 $25,000 $10,000 Planning and Permitting Year 1 $100,000 $13,000 Year 2 $0 $0 Year 3 $6,000 $7,000 Year 4 $15,000 $7,000 Year 5 $3,100 $600 Data Collection Year 1 $65,000 $26,000 Year 2 $36,000 $15,000 Year 3 $70,000 $21,000 Year 4 $75,000 $26,000 Year 5 $50,000 $15,000 Laboratory Year 1 $15,000 $3,000 Year 2 $10,000 $3,000 Year 3 $20,000 $3,000 Year 4 $15,000 $1,000 Year 5 $15,000 $500 Reporting Year 1 $60,000 $20,000 Year 2 $50,000 $15,000 Year 3 $50,000 $20,000 Year 4 $55,000 $25,000 Year 5 $55,000 $25,000 Total Year 1 $261,000 $72,000 Year 2 $122,000 $45,000 Year 3 $171,000 $62,000 Year 4 $185,000 $70,000 Year 5 $148,100 $51,100 Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan Section 7 · Fiscal Summary Water Year 2014 Annual Monitoring Report 7-2 This page intentionally left blank. 8-1 Section 8 Conclusions and Recommendations This section presents the conclusions from WY 2014, and previous years, implementation of the TRWQMP. Based on these conclusions, this section also presents adaptive management recommendations for WY 2015 and the continued implementation of the TRWQMP. Overall, monitoring activities should be continued per the guidance in the TRWQMP and the adaptive management based modifications that have been made to the program over the initial five years. There is a continued need to develop more comprehensive and robust datasets that will help to identify specific areas of concern and evaluate the performance of storm water management activities. As the monitoring dataset is further developed, it will provide a valuable tool for the identification and prioritization of potential future storm water management activities to protect water quality in the Truckee River and its tributaries. 8.1 Rapid Assessment Methodology Conclusions The results of the WY 2014 RAM indicate that West Martis Creek continues to have the highest amount of fine sediment channel substrate of all the streams surveyed. The results also indicate that since the initial surveys 2010, the amount of fine sediment substrate has decreased in each of the four surveyed streams in 2014. Recommendations The RAM results vary over time and the causes of the variation have not been identified. Attempts to correlate the changes with precipitation and runoff patterns have not been successful because of inconsistencies among the monitored streams. The variation may also be a reflection of the range of error in the data collection and analysis methodology. The RAM results generated to date are not adequate for identifying sources or trends relating to fine substrate. A new approach for analyzing and presenting data should be considered, possibly including a more focused analysis of existing data (i.e. presenting results from each individual transect as opposed to averages for an entire reach). With additional refinement and data collection, areas with high concentrations of sand and fines could be tracked over time with more localized data collection to determine whether conditions are improving or declining. Areas that do not contain sand or fines may not necessitate further monitoring. Over time, rapid assessment observations should also focus on areas of greater concern. The 150m long reaches provide good initial indications of problem areas, but surveying smaller areas with additional and more concentrated measurements would more accurately define specific areas where sediment accumulation is excessive and better enable the tracking of changes to its distribution and movement. As patterns of fine sediment problem areas within the various stream and river channels emerge, increasing efforts should be made to identify the associated upstream sources of this excess fine sediment. Due to the dynamic nature of sediment transport in these water bodies, this challenging process will require a well-developed approach. It is likely that data from the other assessment types will need to be considered, together with the rapid assessment results, to confidently identify source Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan Section 8 · Conclusions and Recommendations Water Year 2014 Annual Monitoring Report 8-2 areas. More detailed watershed level field surveys of potential source areas, preferably during large precipitation events, will also provide valuable insight into the identification and prioritization of sediment sources and into the development of alternatives for remedial actions. 8.2 Bioassessment Conclusions For Squaw Creek, the numerical target for biological health (representing desired stream integrity protective of aquatic life uses) is a BCS value of 25 or more. Water year 2014 values for Squaw Creek were far short of this target with BCS values of 13, 19, and 13 for upper, middle, and lower meadow sites, respectively. The mean BCS value for all survey years is 15.3 (range 7 to 27). Historically, BCS values have only met or exceeded the target value of 25 during one survey year (two of the three sites in 2012). Particles less than 3 mm diameter (%fines+sand), along with D50, are the two physical habitat parameters identified as important indicators of habitat suitability for aquatic life in the context of the Squaw Creek sediment TMDL. The numerical target for D50 is an increasing trend approaching 40 mm or greater, while the target for %fines+sand is a decreasing trend approaching 25 percent or less in the Squaw Creek meadow reach. Both of these parameters were far short of target values in 2014; historical values are also well below TMDL targets. As in previous survey years, 2014 bioassessment results for Martis Creek indicate that the upper tributaries with less disturbance had the highest IBI scores with values of 98.0 and 86.2 out of 100 at the Schaeffer and Upper West Martis Sites, respectively. Both scores are considered Tier 5 (or Grade ”A”) indicative of conditions supporting regional water-quality objectives. These two survey locations also had a low percentage of fine sediment on the streambed. The lower West Branch and lower mainstem sites had IBI scores of 76.8 and 75.2, respectively, which are considered Tier 3 (or Grade “C”), indicative of conditions partially supporting water-quality objectives. These results illustrate declining conditions in West Martis Creek as the stream flows through the Northstar residential area and golf course. The poorest scoring sites on Martis Creek were middle mainstem and East Branch sites which had IBI scores of 57.9 and 56.3, respectively. These two sites are considered Tier 2 (or Grade “D”), indicative of conditions not supporting water-quality objectives for the region. Only the middle mainstem site) in Martis Creek showed a substantial decline relative to previous survey years. Recommendations The bioassessment activities being conducted under this program are well developed and follow standardized protocols that are well suited for their purpose. The differences between the Squaw and Martis Creek data collection protocols can be effectively reconciled at the analysis and reporting stage and any significant adjustments to either field protocol are not warranted at this time. The bioassessments provide a proven indicator of stream health and the results are valuable, especially when evaluated together with results from other assessment types. Bioassessment data collected by other groups, such as the TRWC, should be evaluated for compatibility with this program and appropriately integrated into the analysis and reporting. Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan Water Year 2014 Annual Monitoring Report Section 8 · Conclusions and Recommendations 8-3 8.3 Community Level Discrete Monitoring The community level monitoring is an effective means of characterizing stormwater runoff and the effectiveness of the water quality controls in the monitored areas. The data also provides: a means of prioritizing these areas for water quality improvements, an important source of planning and design information, and justification for requests of grant funding for such projects. Placer County conducted community level sampling at two new sites in the Northstar area of the Martis Creek watershed. The Town of Truckee conducted a limited community level sampling program to support water quality modeling of the stormwater outfalls to Donner Creek as discussed in section 8.7. The Donner Creek outfall monitoring was performed as an adaptive management strategy based on monitoring results from WY 2013. Conclusions WY 2014 was the first year of data collection at the two Placer County community level sites (DSC- MC4 and DSC-MC5). The initial year’s water quality results indicate that the stormwater outfall downstream of these two sites does not contribute unusually high pollutant loads to West Martis Creek, or other downstream receiving waters. In addition, the following more specific statements can be made: Larger and higher intensity rain and rain/snow mixed precipitation events produce the highest pollutant concentrations in stormwater at both sites. Low flow snow melt events often infiltrate and/or evapotranspire prior to the discharge point. Limited snowfall at the sites resulted in only one snowmelt runoff sample being obtained at each site. Samples at the upstream Northstar Drive site (DSC-MC4) had relatively high mean concentrations for all constituents analyzed. The concentrations are considered typical for the current land uses, and the limited stormwater treatment, upstream of the sampling point. Pollutant concentrations at the downstream site (DSC-MC5), which discharges from the Aspen Grove condominium property just upstream of West Martis Creek, were generally low indicating effective pollutant removal as runoff passes through the wetland area within the Aspen Grove property. A statistically analysis indicates that there is a significant difference in for TSS, turbidity, total nitrogen, and total phosphorus concentrations at the 95 percent confidence level between the upstream and downstream monitoring locations. The results of the trend analyses indicate increasing concentrations of total nitrogen and dissolved phosphorus at the Northstar Drive site. These results are sensitive to the more extreme values in this limited dataset and should be considered preliminary. Recommendations Community level monitoring at DSC-MC4 and DSC-MC5 should continue in WY 2015 to strengthen the dataset and confirm the above findings. Inspections of watersheds within the Northstar community should be performed during large runoff events when possible in an attempt to identify and prioritize pollutant source areas. Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan Section 8 · Conclusions and Recommendations Water Year 2014 Annual Monitoring Report 8-4 To reduce sediment discharges from the higher priority outfalls, the following recommendations should be considered by the Town and County as funding and other constraints allow. 1. The sand traps and infiltration channel at the Northstar Drive site should be inspected and cleaned regularly to maintain its flow course and infiltration capacity. Road sand accumulates in this area due to the lack of upstream sand trap storage. 2. Install sand trap drainage inlets with a larger capacity upstream of the infiltration channel. 3. Pave or otherwise stabilize bare soil areas within the public right-of-way, especially near drainage inlets and conveyances to limit erosion and tracking. 4. Install curb and gutter or improve the storm drain system to keep concentrated runoff flows separated from the bare soil areas. 5. Install deterrents to prevent parking on dirt shoulders. 6. Install improvements to promote infiltration and reduce storm water runoff volumes. 7. Sweep streets frequently to remove excess traction sand. Given the limited resources for these types of activities, consider prioritizing high traffic areas, especially near the river and its tributaries. 8.4 Tributary Level Water Quality Monitoring The results of the first five years of tributary level water quality monitoring at the six Martis Creek sites provide meaningful information regarding the types of pollutants and their relative concentrations and loads at the various locations. Continued monitoring will increase the statistical confidence in making comparisons among sites and evaluating water quality trends. Furthermore, the multi-year effort will be important in characterizing seasonal variability due to differences in annual precipitation patterns and the effects of continuing development, stormwater management and/or watershed restoration activities. Conclusions After five years of monitoring, the data indicate that mean total phosphorus concentrations at each of the monitored locations are higher than the defined water quality objectives at the mouth of Martis Creek. The mean total nitrogen and TKN concentrations are lower than the established water quality objectives. Although lower, the total phosphorus concentrations in East Martis Creek still exceed the objectives. This sub-watershed is currently undeveloped relative to other areas draining to Martis Creek. This indicates that a portion of the phosphorus source may be naturally occurring in the soils and erosion control activities that prevent soil from entering runoff can be very important in reducing this pollutant to Martis Creek. It is also important to note that sampling efforts have generally focused on larger runoff events where concentrations are typically elevated. For this reason, the reported mean values of all pollutants may overestimate the actual pollutant concentrations in each stream. A statistical trend analysis shows that concentrations at each monitoring location are decreasing. This is likely due to the decreasing trend in precipitation amounts that has occurred during the five years of monitoring. Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan Water Year 2014 Annual Monitoring Report Section 8 · Conclusions and Recommendations 8-5 The following table presents the results of statistical t-tests indicating significant mean pollutant concentration differences at a 95% confidence level. Table 8-1. Statistical Differences among Tributary Level Discrete Sampling Data Constituent Statistical Difference Total Nitrogen DST -MC6 > DST -MC1, DST -MC2, DST -MC3, DST -MC4, DST -MC5 Total Phosphorus None Turbidity DST -MC4 > DST -MC6 TSS DST -MC4 > DST -MC2, DST -MC3, DST -MC5, DST -MC6 DST-MC1 > DST-MC6 Recommendations Continue monitoring and include a number of lower flow events to increase representativeness of the range of conditions in the calculated mean concentrations and pollutant loads. Currently, the mean concentrations and the related load-based evaluations are based on “worst-case” water quality data sampled from events likely to have caused higher than average pollutant mobilizations. 8.5 Stream Gages Due to the relocation of the stream gages in Martis Creek, limited amount of data was available from WY 2014 for the development of some rating curves and continuous records of discharge. Data collection at each gage occurred during the following time periods: GS-MC2: January 2014 – June 2014 (Station was established in January and lake level rises during the summer of 2014 interfered with stage and discharge measurements. TURB-MC1: October 2013 – September 2014 (Station was relocated at the beginning of WY 2014 to capture additional flows that were bypassed at the previous location). TURB–MC2: October 2012 – September 2014 (Although this station was also relocated at the beginning of WY 2014, no flows were bypassed in the original location so the discharge data from both locations was combined). Discharge data from two Truckee River stream gages operated by the USGS were used for the suspended sediment loading evaluations that were conducted above and below the Town of Truckee. Long-term discharge data from these Truckee River stations is available and considered reliable for use in the TRWQMP implementation activities. Conclusions The table below presents the key stream discharge related parameters from each of the locations monitored during WY 2014. USGS data is presented for the stations that were used to evaluate pollutant loading on the Truckee River main stem. Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan Section 8 · Conclusions and Recommendations Water Year 2014 Annual Monitoring Report 8-6 Table 8 -2. TRWQMP WY 2013 Key Discharge Param eters Station/Location Total Annual Discharge (Acre-ft.) Annual Peak Discharge (CFS) Annual Mean Discharge (CFS) TURB -MS3/Truckee River above Truckee 106,135 724 147 TURB -TT1/Truckee River below Truckee 274,898 1270 380 TURB -MC1/West Martis Ck 637 33.3 0. 9 TURB -MC2/Upper Martis Ck Main Stem 2,296 105 3.3 GS -MC 2/Lower Martis Ck Main Stem 3,890 140 7.9 Recommendations It is recommended that Station (GS-MC2) at the mouth of Martis Creek be relocated due to impacts of lake level increases in Martis Creek Reservoir. Newly identified discharge estimates developed under the TROA provide reasonable discharge data for the total Martis Creek discharge to the reservoir. This gaging station should be relocated to East Martis Creek, which, in combination with TRWQMP gaging stations on West Martis Creek and the Upper Martis Creek Main Stem, a TRWC gage on Middle Martis Creek, and the TROA data at the mouth of Martis Creek, will provide for a complete stream gaging system for each of the major tributaries of the Martis Creek Watershed. Continue monitoring discharge from the two Truckee River stream gages operated by the USGS and used for suspended sediment loading evaluations conducted above and below the Town of Truckee. 8.6 Suspended Sediment Load Estimates WY 2014 was the second year of data collection at four near-continuous turbidity monitoring stations for the purpose of developing records of suspended sediment loading, identifying sediment source areas and characterizing loading patterns from different types of runoff event. Suspended sediment loads, as they relate to turbidity levels and to discharge rates, were estimated at the four sites and the results were analyzed together with additional loading information from similar monitoring conducted by the TRWC and DWR. Conclusions The two-year dataset remains limited due to the predominance of drought conditions in the study area. Based on data collected to date, the following conclusions and observations can be made: Truckee River Isolated, summer thunderstorms over the upper watershed continue to illustrate the importance of discrete, high-intensity runoff events in mobilizing large amounts of sediment and transporting it to the Truckee River and downstream. Large rain on snow or summer thunderstorm events can generate sediment loads an order of magnitude, or more, greater than loads generated by long-duration low intensity events such as spring snowmelt runoff. The total annual suspended sediment load in the Truckee River above and below the Town of Truckee was approximately 460 tons and 1,600 tons, respectively based on the SSC:Turbidity rating curve method. Using the standard discharge-based sediment rating curve, loads at the two sites were 315 and 1,350 tons respectively. Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan Water Year 2014 Annual Monitoring Report Section 8 · Conclusions and Recommendations 8-7 Of the 1,600 tons of suspended sediment load estimated in the Truckee River at the Boca Bridge, approximately 28 percent originated from the 46 square mile area contributing to the Truckee River above Truckee, approximately 12 percent originated from the 15.2 square mile area draining to Donner Creek below Donner Lake and approximately 1 percent originates from the 4.6 square mile area draining to Trout Creek. The remaining fraction of the sediment load, 59 percent, or almost 1,000 tons, is likely from ungaged tributaries, in-channel and non-point sources and stormwater outfalls within the Town of Truckee Corridor watershed. Suspended sediment yields in the Truckee River at Boca Bridge (20 tons/square mile) were 50 percent higher than those measured in the Truckee River above Truckee (10 tons/square mile). After the first year of monitoring, in WY 2013, the yields at Boca Bridge were only 25 percent higher than those measured above Truckee. The suspended sediment yield from Trout Creek is estimated at 1.5 tons/square mile The suspended sediment yield from Donner Creek below Cold Creek is estimated at 13 tons/square mile. The suspended sediment data collected during WY 2013 and 2014 indicate that the Truckee River was in attainment of the defined TMDL compliance standard. The evaluation of historic DWR turbidity data and DRI suspended sediment sampling did not identify any significant trends or patterns in the Truckee River’s suspended sediment load. Martis Creek The total annual suspended sediment load in West Martis Creek was approximately 10 tons computed using the discharge-based method and approximately 9 tons using the turbidity based method. Due to the relocation of this site at the beginning of WY 2014, the discharge- based method is based on a limited data set. The total annual suspended sediment load in the main stem of Martis Creek was approximately 12 tons computed using the discharge-based method and 21 tons using the turbidity-based method. Of all the Martis Creek tributaries, the West Martis sub-watershed produced the highest sediment loads per acre. This area includes most of the Northstar ski area, residential development and a golf course. The Martis Creek upper main stem sub-watershed produced the highest total phosphorus and total nitrogen loads per acre when compared to the other Martis tributaries. This area includes the Martis Camp and Lahontan developments, which contain golf courses, as well as a portion of the Northstar ski area. Recommendations Continued monitoring is recommended in order to increase understanding of suspended-sediment loading within the Truckee River and its tributaries, evaluate seasonal variability, and characterize the effects of watershed development, restoration efforts or stormwater management practices. Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan Section 8 · Conclusions and Recommendations Water Year 2014 Annual Monitoring Report 8-8 For the Truckee River, monitoring of the near-continuous turbidity probes upstream of Truckee and downstream of Truckee at the Boca Bridge should be continued for a third season. This will provide a more robust dataset that can be used to confirm the conclusions presented in this report. Near-continuous turbidity stations should also be considered for the gaging stations on East Martis Creek and Middle Martis Creek that were discussed previously. It is recommended that Placer County purchase two internal datalogging turbidity probes, which are self-contained requiring no external power to operate. They measure turbidity as accurately as the probes currently in use, cost less and can optimistically function better than the current probes in the conditions encountered in the Martis Valley. With the two additional near-continuous turbidity stations, suspended sediment loads can be determined for all of the major branches of Martis Creek. This will assist in identifying and prioritizing watersheds with the highest pollutant loads. Once priority watersheds are identified, more focused monitoring such as community level sampling or visual inspections can be performed to find specific problem areas. 8.7 Donner Creek Outfall Modeling Hydrologic and water quality modeling was conducted during WY 2014 in response to preliminary findings of elevated sediment loads in Donner Creek as described in the WY 2013 Annual Report. The overall goal of these additional activities was to identify and prioritize the major sub-basins draining to Donner Creek with respect to their suspended sediment contributions. Conclusions Modeling results indicate that the stormwater outfalls contributing the highest sediment loads to Donner Creek are located along the lower portion of Donner Creek between Interstate 80 and the confluence with the Truckee River. The highest loading outfall drains a significant portion of Deerfield Drive and the surrounding commercial development. Significant loads were also identified from outfalls draining Hwy 89 and West River Street. Recommendations Water quality modeling provides an effective means of identifying and prioritizing outfalls and their drainage areas in terms of pollutant loading. A more comprehensive model should be considered to incorporate the remaining outfalls within the Town limits and provide an overall assessment of stormwater related pollutant sources to the Truckee River. Focused sampling, and flow monitoring, should also be considered in conjunction with the modeling to verify and calibrate the results. 9-1 Section 9 References Amorfini, B. and Holden, A., 2008, Total maximum daily load for sediment, Middle Truckee River Watershed, Placer, Nevada, and Sierra Counties, includes Gray and Bronco Creeks, California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Lahontan Region staff report, 5 chapters + appendices (Amorfini and Holden, 2008). 2ND NATURE, LLC, 2008. Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan. Prepared for Placer County and the Town of Truckee, Truckee, CA (2NDNATURE, LLC, 2008). Carter, R.W., and Davidian, J., 1968, Techniques of water-resources investigations of the U.S. Geological Survey: Book 3, Applications of Hydraulics, chapter A6: General procedure for gaging streams, 60 p (Carter and Davidian, 1968). CDM Smith, 2010. Evaluation of Existing Monitoring for Integration with the Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan. Prepared for Placer County, CA (CDM Smith, 2010a). CDM Smith, 2010. Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan, Phase 1 Permitting and Approvals Requirements. Prepared for Placer County, CA (CDM Smith, 2010b). CDM Smith, 2010. Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan Monitoring Site Selection Report. Prepared for Placer County, CA (CDM Smith, 2010c). CDM Smith, 2010. Placer County: Annual Report for Implementation of the Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan, Water Year 2010. Prepared for Placer County, CA (CDM Smith, 2010d). CDM Smith, 2010. Town of Truckee: Annual Report for Implementation of the Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan, Water Year 2010. Prepared for the Town of Truckee, CA (CDM Smith, 2010e). CDM Smith, 2011. Placer County: Sampling and Analysis Plan for: Implementation of the Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan, Water Year 2011. Prepared for Placer County, CA (CDM Smith, 2011a). CDM Smith, 2011. Town of Truckee: Sampling and Analysis Plan for: Implementation of the Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan, Water Year 2011. Prepared for The Town of Truckee, CA (CDM Smith, 2011b). CDM Smith, 2011, Equipment Installation Report. Prepared for Placer County, CA (CDM Smith, 2011c). CDM Smith, 2011. Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan Field Equipment Operations and Maintenance Manual. Prepared for Placer County, CA (CDM Smith, 2011d). CDM Smith, 2011. Town of Truckee/County of Placer: Final Joint Monitoring Report for: Implementation of the Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan, Water Year 2011. Prepared jointly for The Town of Truckee and County of Placer, CA (CDM Smith, 2011e). Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan Section 9 · References Water Year 2014 Annual Monitoring Report 9-2 CDM Smith, 2013. Placer County: Sampling and Analysis Plan for: Implementation of the Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan, Water Year 2011. Prepared for Placer County, CA (CDM Smith, 2013a). CDM Smith, 2013. Town of Truckee: Draft Sampling and Analysis Plan for: Implementation of the Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan, Water Year 2011. Prepared for The Town of Truckee, CA (CDM Smith, 2013b). CDM Smith, 2013. Town of Truckee/County of Placer: Final Joint Monitoring Report for: Implementation of the Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan, Water Year 2012. Prepared jointly for The Town of Truckee and County of Placer, CA (CDM Smith, 2013c). CDM Smith, 2013. Town of Truckee/County of Placer: Final Joint Monitoring Report for: Implementation of the Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan, Water Year 2013. Prepared jointly for The Town of Truckee and County of Placer, CA (CDM Smith, 2013d). CDM Smith, 2014. Placer County: Sampling and Analysis Plan for: Implementation of the Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan, Water Year 2014. Prepared for Placer County, CA (CDM Smith, 2014a). CDM Smith, 2014. Town of Truckee: Sampling and Analysis Plan for: Implementation of the Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan, Water Year 2014. Prepared for The Town of Truckee, CA (CDM Smith, 2014b). Edwards, T.K., and Glysson, G.D., 1999, Field methods for measurement of fluvial sediment: Techniques of water-resources investigations of the U.S. Geological Survey: Book 3, Applications of Hydraulics, chapter C2 (Edwards and Glysson, 1999). Grothe, Douglas E. Park Manager, US Army Corps of Engineers, Martis Creek Lake. Personal communication, October 24, 2014. (USACE, 2014) Hastings, B. K., Shaw, D., and Strasenburgh, C., 2013, Middle Truckee River total maximum daily load (TMDL) suspended sediment monitoring report, water year 2013, Nevada County, California. 37 p. + figures and appendices. Hastings, B. K., and Shaw, D., 2014, (draft), Middle Truckee River total maximum daily load (TMDL) suspended sediment monitoring report, water year 2014, Nevada County, California. 36 p. + figures and appendices. Herbst, D.B. and E.L. Silldorff, 2004. Performance of Different Bioassessment Methods from California: Side-by-Side Comparisons of Field, Laboratory and Analysis Procedures for Streams of the Eastern Sierra Nevada (Herbst and Silldorff, 2004). Herbst, D., 2011, Use of benthic invertebrate biological indicators in evaluating sediment deposition impairment on the Middle Truckee River, California: Consulting report prepared for the Truckee River Watershed Council, 6 p (Herbst, 2011). Hill, B.R., Hill, J.R., and Nolan, M.K., 1989, Sediment-source data for four basins tributary to Lake Tahoe, California and Nevada, August 1983-June 1988. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 89- 618, 42 p (Hill, Hill, and Nolan, 1989). Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan Water Year 2014 Annual Monitoring Report Section 9 · References 9-3 Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board and Nevada Division of Environmental Protection, 2010, Lake Tahoe Total Daily Maximum Load Technical Report, June (LRWQCB and NDEP, 2010). MacDonald, L.H., Smart, A.W., and Wissmar, R.C., 1991, Monitoring guidelines to evaluate effects of forestry activities on streams in the Pacific Northwest and Alaska; developed for Region 10, USEPA, Seattle, WA, 166 p (Macdonald and Others, 1991). McGraw, D., McKay, A., Guohong, D., Bullard, T., Minor, T., and Kuchnicki, J., 2001, Water quality assessment and modeling of the California portion of the Truckee River Basin, Desert Research Institute publication no. 41170 prepared for the Town of Truckee and Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board, 120 p. + appendices (McGraw and Kuchnicki, 2001). McGraw, D., McKay, A., Duan, G., Bullard, T., Minor, T., and Kuchnicki, J., 2001, Water quality assessment and modeling of the California portion of the Truckee River Basin: Prepared for the Town of Truckee and LRWQCB by the Division of Hydrological Sciences, Desert Research Institute, Las Vegas, Nevada, 167 p (McGraw and Kuchnicki, 2001). Pacific Municipal Consultants, 2003. Martis Valley Community Plan. Prepared for Placer County (Pacific Municipal Consultants, 2003a). Pacific Municipal Consultants, 2003. Martis Valley Community Plan Update, Draft Environmental Impact Report. Prepared for Placer County (Pacific Municipal Consultants, 2003b). Placer County, 2007. Truckee River Basin Stormwater Management Program, Program Years 2007- 2012. Prepared by Placer County Department of Public Works Stormwater Quality Division (Placer, 2007). Southwest Association of Freshwater Invertebrate Taxonomists (SAFIT). 2006. SAFIT List of Freshwater Macroinvertebrate Taxa from California and Adjacent States including Standard Taxonomic Effort Levels. 28 November 2006. www.safit.org (SAFIT, 2006). State of California Regional Water Quality Control Board Lahontan Region, 2005. Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region North and South Basins (LRWQCB, 2005). State of California Regional Water Quality Control Board Lahontan Region, 2006. Total Maximum Daily Load for Sediment in Squaw Creek (LRWQCB, 2006). State of California Regional Water Quality Control Board Lahontan Region, 2007. Order to Submit Technical Report in Accordance with Section 13267 of the California Water Code. (LRWQCB, 2007a). State of California Regional Water Quality Control Board Lahontan Region, 2008. Sampling and Analysis Requirements for Numeric Target Monitoring for Squaw Creek Total Maximum Daily Load for Sediment (LRWQCB, 2008a). State of California Regional Water Quality Control Board Lahontan Region, 2008. Total Maximum Daily Load for Sediment, Middle Truckee River, Placer, Nevada and Sierra Counties (LRWQCB, 2008b). Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan Section 9 · References Water Year 2014 Annual Monitoring Report 9-4 State of California Regional Water Quality Control Board Lahontan Region and Nevada Division of Environmental Protection, 2008. Lake Tahoe TMDL Pollutant Reduction Opportunity Report (LRWQCB and NDEP, 2008). State of California Water Resources Control Board, 2007. Standard Operating Procedures for Collecting Benthic Macroinvertebrate Samples and Associated Physical and Chemical Data for Ambient Bioassessments in California. (SWRCB, 2007). State of California Water Resources Control Board, 2013. Water Quality Order No. 2013-0001-DWQ National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit No. CAS000004. Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) for Storm Water Dischargees from Small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s)(General Permit)(SWRCB, 2013). State of California Water Resources Control Board, 2013. Phase II Small MS4 Permit TMDL Requirements, Power Point Presentation presented on Sept. 20, 2013. Available at: http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/stormwater/phase_ii_municipal.shtml . Accessed on: October 13, 2014. (SWRCB, 2013b) Town of Truckee, 2007. Town of Truckee Stormwater Management Program, Program Years 2007- 2012. Prepared by the Town of Truckee (Truckee, 2007). Truckee River Operating Agreement (TROA) Information System. USGS Computed Flow for Martis Creek Reservoir Hydrologic Inflow. Available at: http://www.troa.net/reports/usgs_computedflow/ . Website accessed October, 2014. (TROA, 2014). U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2014. United States Department of Agriculture, National Resource Conservation Service, National Water and Climate Center, California SNOTEL Data. Available online at: http://www.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/snotel/California/california.html/ (USDA, 2014). U.S. Geological Survey and U.S. Department of the Interior, 1982. Measurement and Computation of Stream Flow: Volume 1. Measurement of Stage and Discharge. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2175. United States Government Printing Office, Washington D.C. (USGS, 1982). U.S. Geological Survey, 1996, A dynamical-systems approach for computing ice-affected streamflow, USGS water supply paper 2473, U.S. Department of the Interior, Denver, CO, 14 p (USGS, 1996). U.S. Geological Survey, 2008. National Field Manual for the Collection of Water-Quality Data: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chaps. A1-A9. Available online at http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/twri9A (USGS, 2008). U.S. Geological Survey, 2012. National Water Information System: Web Interface. Real-Time Data for Nevada Streamflow. Available online at: http://waterdata.usgs.gov/ca/nwis/current/?type=flow/ (USGS, 2014). Walling, D.E., 1977, Assessing the accuracy of suspended sediment rating curves for a small basin, Water resources research, v. 13, no. 3, p. 531-538 (Walling, 1977). Appendix A Statistical Results Statistical Results Index DSC-MC4 and DSC-MC5 Total Suspended Solids………………………………………………………………………………1 DST MC1 and DST MC2 Total Suspended Solids……………………………………………………………………………….2 DST MC3 and DST MC4 Total Suspended Solids……………………………………………………………………………….3 DST MC5 and DST MC6 Total Suspended Solids……………………………………………………………………………….4 DSC-MC4 and DSC-MC5 Turbidity…………………….…………………………………………………………………..…………5 DST-MC1 and DST-MC2 Turbidity…………………….…………………………………………………………………………..…6 DST-MC3 and DST-MC4 Turbidity…………………….…………………………………………………………………………..…7 DST-MC5 and DST-MC6 Turbidity…………………….…………………………………………………………………………..…8 DSC-MC4 and DSC-MC5 Total Nitrogen……………………………………………………………………………………………9 DST MC1 and DST MC2 Total Nitrogen………………………………………………………………………………………..….10 DST MC3 and DST MC4 Total Nitrogen…………………………………………………………………………………………...11 DST MC5 and DST MC6 Total Nitrogen………………………………………………………………………………………..….12 DSC-MC4 and DSC-MC5 Total Phosphorus………………………………………………………………………………………13 DST MC1 and DST MC2 Total Phosphorus …………………………………………………………………………………..….14 DST MC3 and DST MC4 Total Phosphorus ……………………………………………………………………………………...15 DST MC5 and DST MC6 Total Phosphorus …………………………………………………………………………………..….16 DSC-MC4 and DSC-MC5 Dissolved Phosphorus………………………………………………………………………….……17 DST MC1 and DST MC2 Dissolved Phosphorus …………………………………………………………………………...….18 DST MC3 and DST MC4 Dissolved Phosphorus ………………………………………………………………….…………...19 DST MC5 and DST MC6 Dissolved Phosphorus ……………………………………………………………………………….20 1 St a t i s t i c a l C o m p a r i s o n Ti m e S e r i e s - M a n n - K e n d a l l ( M K ) T r e n d A n a l y s e s Sh a p i r o - W i l k ( S W ) a n d L i l l i e f o r s ( L ) N o r m a l i t y T e s t s Ev e n t T y p e Ye a r Si t e Gr o u p 2 v s G r o u p 1 DS C - M C 4 C o m m u n i t y DS C - M C 5 C o m m u n i t y DS C - M C 4 C o m m u n i t y DSC-MC5 Community Mi x R a i n / S n o w 2 0 0 9 - 1 0 D S C - M C 4 An a l y t e Co u n t ( n ) 8 8 p- v a l u e ( S W ) 0. 3 1 0 1 8 6 6 0 0.23375939 Sn o w m e l t 2 0 1 0 - 1 1 To t a l S u s p e n d e d S o l i d s Co u n t ( n o n d e t e c t s ) 0 0 p- v a l u e ( L ) 1. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.54370328 Ra i n 2 0 1 1 - 1 2 SW S t a n d a r d S 4 2 No t e : V a l u e s s h o u l d b e g r e a t e r t h a n a l p h a ( 0 . 0 5 ) 20 1 2 - 1 3 No n e Va r S 65 65 Bo x P l o t 20 1 3 - 1 4 GW S t a n d a r d Tr e n d In c r e a s i n g In c r e a s i n g No n e p- v a l u e 0. 3 5 5 2 6 1 5 1 0. 4 5 0 7 6 9 3 1 St a n d a r d T y p e No n e Al p h a 0. 0 5 Me a n % D i f f e r e n c e ( r o b u s t R O S ) 86 . 6 0 6 5 1 7 8 5 Ev e n t T y p e Ye a r Si t e Mi x R a i n / S n o w 2 0 0 9 - 1 0 D S C - M C 5 Sn o w m e l t 2 0 1 0 - 1 1 Ra i n 2 0 1 1 - 1 2 20 1 2 - 1 3 20 1 3 - 1 4 t T e s t ( I n d e p e n d e n t ) Da t a Lo g D a t a Rk D a t a Me a n ( r o b u s t R O S ) G r o u p 1 53 5 . 7 0 8 3 3 3 3 3 2. 4 1 8 5 1 6 2 9 11 . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 G r o u p 2 71 . 7 5 1. 4 3 2 2 1 9 1 9 5 6 De l t a 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 St d ( r o b u s t R O S ) G r o u p 1 55 7 . 0 9 6 8 2 3 7 5 0. 6 2 2 9 9 9 3 7 4. 2 0 8 8 3 4 2 5 G r o u p 2 78 . 4 0 3 2 6 1 5 9 0. 7 8 6 9 3 9 2 3 4. 0 7 0 8 0 1 9 5 7 de g r e e s o f f r e e d o m 7. 2 7 7 1 8 1 7 2 13 . 2 9 9 8 1 9 4 5 13 . 9 8 4 4 6 1 7 1 Ef f e c t S i z e ( d ) -4 6 3 . 9 5 8 3 3 3 3 3 -0 . 9 8 6 2 9 7 1 0 -5 . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 t S t a t i s t i c 2. 3 3 2 5 6 8 5 3 2. 7 7 9 4 0 2 4 6 2. 4 1 5 2 2 9 4 6 t C r i t i c a l 1. 8 9 4 5 7 8 6 1 1. 7 7 0 9 3 3 4 0 1. 7 7 0 9 3 3 4 0 p- v a l u e ( 2 - s i d e d ) 0. 0 5 8 4 3 4 9 9 0. 0 1 6 6 6 8 8 5 0. 0 3 2 6 0 0 1 4 Po w e r 0. 3 3 7 2 9 5 3 7 0. 8 3 4 1 8 3 9 3 0. 7 3 4 7 0 5 9 9 Po w e r A n a l y s i s Be t a 0. 2 NA NA Ad d i t i o n a l n ( e a c h G r o u p ) 10 NA NA Su m m a r y S t a t i s t i c s Tu r b i d i t y n % d e c t mi n ma x me a n me d i a n ST D D E V CV Gr o u p 1 DS C - M C 4 8 10 0 % 39 . 0 0 0 16 0 0 53 5 . 7 0 8 38 3 . 3 3 3 55 7 . 0 9 7 1. 0 4 0 Gr o u p 2 DS C - M C 5 8 10 0 % 2. 0 0 0 0 22 0 . 0 0 0 71 . 7 5 0 46 . 5 0 0 78 . 4 0 3 1. 0 9 3 DS C - M C 5 C o m m u n i t y DS C - M C 4 C o m m u n i t y 0 20 0 40 0 60 0 80 0 10 0 0 12 0 0 14 0 0 16 0 0 18 0 0 1/ 1 1 / 1 4 3 / 2 / 1 4 4 / 2 1 / 1 4 6 / 1 0 / 1 4 7 / 3 0 / 1 4 9 / 1 8 / 1 4 T o t a l S u s p e n d e d S o l i d s ( m g / L ) Da t e Ti m e S e r i e s P l o t DS C - M C 4 C o m m u n i t y DS C - M C 5 C o m m u n i t y Op e n S y m b o l = L e f t - C e n s o r e d -2 . 0 -1 . 5 -1 . 0 -0 . 5 0. 0 0. 5 1. 0 1. 5 2. 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 N o r m a l Q u a n t i l e To t a l S u s p e n d e d S o l i d s ( m g / L ) Pa r a l l e l P r o b a b i l i t y P l o t DS C - M C 4 C o m m u n i t y DS C - M C 5 C o m m u n i t y 0 0. 5 1 1. 5 2 2. 5 3 3. 5 DS C - M C 4 C o m m u n i t y D S C - M C 5 C o m m u n i t y L o g 1 0 ( T o t a l S u s p e n d e d S o l i d s ( m g / L ) ) Box Plot 2 St a t i s t i c a l C o m p a r i s o n Ti m e S e r i e s - M a n n - K e n d a l l ( M K ) T r e n d A n a l y s e s Sh a p i r o - W i l k ( S W ) a n d L i l l i e f o r s ( L ) N o r m a l i t y T e s t s Ev e n t T y p e Ye a r Si t e Gr o u p 2 v s G r o u p 1 DS T - M C 1 T r i b u t a r y DS T - M C 2 T r i b u t a r y DS T - M C 1 T r i b u t a r y DST-MC2 Tributary Mi x R a i n / S n o w 2 0 0 9 - 1 0 D S T - M C 1 An a l y t e Co u n t ( n ) 31 31 p- v a l u e ( S W ) 0. 0 6 3 1 2 0 5 3 0.48518659 Sn o w m e l t 2 0 1 0 - 1 1 To t a l S u s p e n d e d S o l i d s Co u n t ( n o n d e t e c t s ) 0 2 p- v a l u e ( L ) 0. 1 5 6 8 0 2 6 0 0.87614590 Ra i n 2 0 1 1 - 1 2 SW S t a n d a r d S -1 8 4 -1 6 2 No t e : V a l u e s s h o u l d b e g r e a t e r t h a n a l p h a ( 0 . 0 5 ) 20 1 2 - 1 3 No n e Va r S 34 3 5 34 5 1 Bo x P l o t 20 1 3 - 1 4 GW S t a n d a r d Tr e n d De c r e a s i n g De c r e a s i n g No n e p- v a l u e 0. 0 0 0 8 9 6 4 7 0. 0 0 3 0 6 7 1 3 St a n d a r d T y p e No n e Al p h a 0. 0 5 Me a n % D i f f e r e n c e ( r o b u s t R O S ) 27 . 9 0 0 4 2 9 6 9 Ev e n t T y p e Ye a r Si t e Mi x R a i n / S n o w 2 0 0 9 - 1 0 D S T - M C 2 Sn o w m e l t 2 0 1 0 - 1 1 Ra i n 2 0 1 1 - 1 2 20 1 2 - 1 3 20 1 3 - 1 4 t T e s t ( I n d e p e n d e n t ) Da t a Lo g D a t a Rk D a t a Me a n ( r o b u s t R O S ) G r o u p 1 15 . 2 3 9 6 7 7 4 2 1. 9 1 6 8 9 6 5 9 32 . 1 9 3 5 4 8 3 9 G r o u p 2 11 . 1 0 8 4 4 9 7 3 1. 8 4 3 2 6 2 1 5 3 30 . 8 0 6 4 5 1 6 1 De l t a 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 St d ( r o b u s t R O S ) G r o u p 1 20 . 2 5 4 4 3 9 2 6 0. 4 7 1 6 9 7 5 6 18 . 5 1 3 3 6 3 3 8 G r o u p 2 10 . 9 9 9 7 3 7 1 8 0. 4 5 1 8 1 2 3 9 5 17 . 7 7 1 5 4 9 0 9 de g r e e s o f f r e e d o m 46 . 2 7 9 8 9 3 1 5 59 . 8 8 9 0 3 6 5 3 59 . 8 9 9 9 3 9 7 4 Ef f e c t S i z e ( d ) -4 . 1 3 1 2 2 7 6 9 -0 . 0 7 3 6 3 4 4 4 -1 . 3 8 7 0 9 6 7 7 t S t a t i s t i c 0. 9 9 7 9 6 6 6 2 0. 6 2 7 6 7 4 6 2 0. 3 0 0 9 4 4 0 7 t C r i t i c a l 1. 6 7 8 6 6 0 4 1 1. 6 7 1 0 9 3 0 3 1. 6 7 1 0 9 3 0 3 p- v a l u e ( 2 - s i d e d ) 0. 3 2 3 6 3 1 8 5 0. 5 3 2 6 8 0 6 6 0. 7 6 4 5 3 3 3 6 Po w e r 0. 2 4 9 7 3 8 7 1 0. 1 5 0 5 0 5 5 4 0. 0 8 7 9 1 5 8 9 Po w e r A n a l y s i s Be t a 0. 2 0. 2 0. 2 Ad d i t i o n a l n ( e a c h G r o u p ) 62 20 0 >3 0 0 Su m m a r y S t a t i s t i c s Tu r b i d i t y n % d e c t mi n ma x me a n me d i a n ST D D E V CV Gr o u p 1 DS T - M C 1 31 10 0 % 2. 0 0 0 82 . 2 4 15 . 2 4 0 6. 0 0 0 20 . 2 5 4 1. 3 2 9 Gr o u p 2 DS T - M C 2 31 94 % 1. 0 0 0 0 46 . 5 0 0 11 . 1 0 8 7. 2 0 0 11 . 0 0 0 0. 9 9 0 DS T - M C 2 T r i b u t a r y DS T - M C 1 T r i b u t a r y 0102030405060708090 8/ 1 0 / 1 0 2 / 2 6 / 1 1 9 / 1 4 / 1 1 4 / 1 / 1 2 1 0 / 1 8 / 1 2 5 / 6 / 1 3 1 1 / 2 2 / 1 3 6 / 10 / 1 4 1 2 / 2 7 / 1 4 T o t a l S u s p e n d e d S o l i d s ( m g / L ) Da t e Ti m e S e r i e s P l o t DS T - M C 1 T r i b u t a r y DS T - M C 2 T r i b u t a r y Op e n S y m b o l = L e f t - C e n s o r e d -2 . 5 -2 . 0 -1 . 5 -1 . 0 -0 . 5 0. 0 0. 5 1. 0 1. 5 2. 0 2. 5 1 10 10 0 N o r m a l Q u a n t i l e To t a l S u s p e n d e d S o l i d s ( m g / L ) Pa r a l l e l P r o b a b i l i t y P l o t DS T - M C 1 T r i b u t a r y DS T - M C 2 T r i b u t a r y 0 0. 5 1 1. 5 2 2. 5 3 3. 5 DS T - M C 1 T r i b u t a r y D S T - M C 2 T r i b u t a r y L o g 1 0 ( T o t a l S u s p e n d e d S o l i d s ( m g / L ) x 1 0 ) Box Plot 3 St a t i s t i c a l C o m p a r i s o n Ti m e S e r i e s - M a n n - K e n d a l l ( M K ) T r e n d A n a l y s e s Sh a p i r o - W i l k ( S W ) a n d L i l l i e f o r s ( L ) N o r m a l i t y T e s t s Ev e n t T y p e Ye a r Si t e Gr o u p 2 v s G r o u p 1 DS T - M C 3 T r i b u t a r y DS T - M C 4 T r i b u t a r y DS T - M C 3 T r i b u t a r y DST-MC4 Tributary Mi x R a i n / S n o w 2 0 0 9 - 1 0 D S T - M C 3 An a l y t e Co u n t ( n ) 29 31 p- v a l u e ( S W ) 0. 0 0 0 8 0 9 8 6 0.26768255 Sn o w m e l t 2 0 1 0 - 1 1 To t a l S u s p e n d e d S o l i d s Co u n t ( n o n d e t e c t s ) 7 0 p- v a l u e ( L ) 0. 0 0 0 0 1 8 6 9 0.34718059 Ra i n 2 0 1 1 - 1 2 SW S t a n d a r d S -2 4 0 -6 5 No t e : V a l u e s s h o u l d b e g r e a t e r t h a n a l p h a ( 0 . 0 5 ) 20 1 2 - 1 3 No n e Va r S 26 2 9 34 4 8 Bo x P l o t 20 1 3 - 1 4 GW S t a n d a r d Tr e n d De c r e a s i n g De c r e a s i n g No n e p- v a l u e 0. 0 0 0 0 0 1 5 7 0. 1 3 7 8 6 1 6 4 St a n d a r d T y p e No n e Al p h a 0. 0 5 Me a n % D i f f e r e n c e ( r o b u s t R O S ) -9 7 . 2 4 3 8 6 0 0 7 Ev e n t T y p e Ye a r Si t e Mi x R a i n / S n o w 2 0 0 9 - 1 0 D S T - M C 4 Sn o w m e l t 2 0 1 0 - 1 1 Ra i n 2 0 1 1 - 1 2 20 1 2 - 1 3 20 1 3 - 1 4 t T e s t ( I n d e p e n d e n t ) Da t a Lo g D a t a Rk D a t a Me a n ( r o b u s t R O S ) G r o u p 1 8. 5 0 6 2 1 5 0 9 1. 5 9 1 5 2 5 5 9 22 . 5 5 1 7 2 4 1 4 G r o u p 2 16 . 1 0 2 5 8 0 6 5 2. 0 8 6 0 0 1 4 2 37 . 9 3 5 4 8 3 8 7 De l t a 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 St d ( r o b u s t R O S ) G r o u p 1 12 . 2 5 1 1 5 5 0 2 0. 5 7 1 8 7 2 3 1 17 . 2 0 4 3 1 0 5 2 G r o u p 2 11 . 8 2 9 9 8 6 1 8 0. 3 5 3 4 4 1 0 8 9 14 . 1 5 1 4 0 8 6 1 de g r e e s o f f r e e d o m 57 . 3 9 3 8 7 0 3 3 46 . 0 9 2 7 6 8 6 5 54 . 3 4 2 7 0 9 5 9 Ef f e c t S i z e ( d ) 7. 5 9 6 3 6 5 5 6 0. 4 9 4 4 7 5 8 3 15 . 3 8 3 7 5 9 7 3 t S t a t i s t i c -2 . 4 4 0 3 0 2 3 2 -3 . 9 9 6 7 0 3 2 9 -3 . 7 6 8 2 4 7 1 6 t C r i t i c a l -1 . 6 7 2 0 2 8 8 9 -1 . 6 7 8 6 6 0 4 1 -1 . 6 7 3 5 6 4 9 1 p- v a l u e ( 2 - s i d e d ) 0. 0 1 7 8 6 4 7 5 0. 0 0 0 2 3 5 6 7 0. 0 0 0 4 1 4 6 1 Po w e r 0. 7 7 7 2 5 1 9 3 0. 9 8 7 5 2 6 3 7 0. 9 7 9 5 4 7 1 3 Po w e r A n a l y s i s Be t a NA NA NA Ad d i t i o n a l n ( e a c h G r o u p ) NA NA NA Su m m a r y S t a t i s t i c s Tu r b i d i t y n % d e c t mi n ma x me a n me d i a n ST D D E V CV Gr o u p 1 DS T - M C 3 29 76 % 1. 0 0 0 60 8. 5 0 6 4. 4 0 0 12 . 2 5 1 1. 4 4 0 Gr o u p 2 DS T - M C 4 31 10 0 % 2. 0 0 0 0 56 . 0 0 0 16 . 1 0 3 16 . 0 0 0 11 . 8 3 0 0. 7 3 5 DS T - M C 4 T r i b u t a r y DS T - M C 3 T r i b u t a r y 010203040506070 8/ 1 0 / 1 0 2 / 2 6 / 1 1 9 / 1 4 / 1 1 4 / 1 / 1 2 1 0 / 1 8 / 1 2 5 / 6 / 1 3 1 1 / 2 2 / 1 3 6 / 10 / 1 4 1 2 / 2 7 / 1 4 T o t a l S u s p e n d e d S o l i d s ( m g / L ) Da t e Ti m e S e r i e s P l o t DS T - M C 3 T r i b u t a r y DS T - M C 4 T r i b u t a r y Op e n S y m b o l = L e f t - C e n s o r e d -2 . 5 -2 . 0 -1 . 5 -1 . 0 -0 . 5 0. 0 0. 5 1. 0 1. 5 2. 0 2. 5 1 10 10 0 N o r m a l Q u a n t i l e To t a l S u s p e n d e d S o l i d s ( m g / L ) Pa r a l l e l P r o b a b i l i t y P l o t DS T - M C 3 T r i b u t a r y DS T - M C 4 T r i b u t a r y 0 0. 5 1 1. 5 2 2. 5 3 DS T - M C 3 T r i b u t a r y D S T - M C 4 T r i b u t a r y L o g 1 0 ( T o t a l S u s p e n d e d S o l i d s ( m g / L ) x 1 0 ) Box Plot 4 St a t i s t i c a l C o m p a r i s o n Ti m e S e r i e s - M a n n - K e n d a l l ( M K ) T r e n d A n a l y s e s Sh a p i r o - W i l k ( S W ) a n d L i l l i e f o r s ( L ) N o r m a l i t y T e s t s Ev e n t T y p e Ye a r Si t e Gr o u p 2 v s G r o u p 1 DS T - M C 5 T r i b u t a r y DS T - M C 6 T r i b u t a r y DS T - M C 5 T r i b u t a r y DST-MC6 Tributary Mi x R a i n / S n o w 2 0 0 9 - 1 0 D S T - M C 5 An a l y t e Co u n t ( n ) 31 25 p- v a l u e ( S W ) 0. 4 9 4 7 6 3 8 4 0.00705021 Sn o w m e l t 2 0 1 0 - 1 1 To t a l S u s p e n d e d S o l i d s Co u n t ( n o n d e t e c t s ) 1 5 p- v a l u e ( L ) 0. 2 0 9 0 3 4 1 1 0.00347432 Ra i n 2 0 1 1 - 1 2 SW S t a n d a r d S -1 6 9 -1 5 3 No t e : V a l u e s s h o u l d b e g r e a t e r t h a n a l p h a ( 0 . 0 5 ) 20 1 2 - 1 3 No n e Va r S 34 4 4 17 6 7 Bo x P l o t 20 1 3 - 1 4 GW S t a n d a r d Tr e n d De c r e a s i n g De c r e a s i n g No n e p- v a l u e 0. 0 0 2 0 9 9 2 4 0. 0 0 0 1 4 9 6 1 St a n d a r d T y p e No n e Al p h a 0. 0 5 Me a n % D i f f e r e n c e ( r o b u s t R O S ) 33 . 3 6 5 2 5 6 0 6 Ev e n t T y p e Ye a r Si t e Mi x R a i n / S n o w 2 0 0 9 - 1 0 D S T - M C 6 Sn o w m e l t 2 0 1 0 - 1 1 Ra i n 2 0 1 1 - 1 2 20 1 2 - 1 3 20 1 3 - 1 4 t T e s t ( I n d e p e n d e n t ) Da t a Lo g D a t a Rk D a t a Me a n ( r o b u s t R O S ) G r o u p 1 10 . 8 1 1 8 5 1 8 0 1. 8 1 9 1 6 2 7 0 30 . 6 1 2 9 0 3 2 3 G r o u p 2 7. 5 1 6 2 7 7 6 8 9 1. 6 3 8 5 5 9 0 4 4 25 . 8 8 De l t a 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 St d ( r o b u s t R O S ) G r o u p 1 11 . 4 4 7 4 5 2 8 8 0. 4 4 7 5 9 8 7 0 15 . 8 4 4 9 3 0 6 7 G r o u p 2 7. 8 3 5 8 1 7 4 8 5 0. 5 0 3 1 4 3 2 7 3 16 . 6 9 5 3 5 8 6 4 de g r e e s o f f r e e d o m 52 . 7 3 5 1 0 1 2 9 48 . 5 8 0 1 3 4 4 4 50 . 2 9 8 3 9 0 0 9 Ef f e c t S i z e ( d ) -3 . 2 9 5 5 7 4 1 1 -0 . 1 8 0 6 0 3 6 5 -4 . 7 3 2 9 0 3 2 3 t S t a t i s t i c 1. 2 7 4 7 8 7 4 6 1. 4 0 2 2 2 6 9 9 1. 0 7 8 7 8 0 0 8 t C r i t i c a l 1. 6 7 4 6 8 9 1 5 1. 6 7 7 2 2 4 2 0 1. 6 7 5 9 0 5 0 3 p- v a l u e ( 2 - s i d e d ) 0. 2 0 8 1 6 1 9 0 0. 1 6 7 4 1 8 0 2 0. 2 8 5 9 6 7 6 9 Po w e r 0. 3 4 5 4 3 3 4 7 0. 3 9 2 2 4 9 3 3 0. 2 7 6 5 5 9 2 6 Po w e r A n a l y s i s Be t a 0. 2 0. 2 0. 2 Ad d i t i o n a l n ( e a c h G r o u p ) 25 15 43 Su m m a r y S t a t i s t i c s Tu r b i d i t y n % d e c t mi n ma x me a n me d i a n ST D D E V CV Gr o u p 1 DS T - M C 5 31 97 % 1. 0 0 0 48 10 . 8 1 2 6. 3 3 3 11 . 4 4 7 1. 0 5 9 Gr o u p 2 DS T - M C 6 25 80 % 1. 0 0 0 0 33 . 8 5 0 7. 5 1 6 6. 0 0 0 7. 8 3 6 1. 0 4 3 DS T - M C 6 T r i b u t a r y DS T - M C 5 T r i b u t a r y 0102030405060 8/ 1 0 / 1 0 2 / 2 6 / 1 1 9 / 1 4 / 1 1 4 / 1 / 1 2 1 0 / 1 8 / 1 2 5 / 6 / 1 3 1 1 / 2 2 / 1 3 6 / 10 / 1 4 1 2 / 2 7 / 1 4 T o t a l S u s p e n d e d S o l i d s ( m g / L ) Da t e Ti m e S e r i e s P l o t DS T - M C 5 T r i b u t a r y DS T - M C 6 T r i b u t a r y Op e n S y m b o l = L e f t - C e n s o r e d -2 . 5 -2 . 0 -1 . 5 -1 . 0 -0 . 5 0. 0 0. 5 1. 0 1. 5 2. 0 2. 5 1 10 10 0 N o r m a l Q u a n t i l e To t a l S u s p e n d e d S o l i d s ( m g / L ) Pa r a l l e l P r o b a b i l i t y P l o t DS T - M C 5 T r i b u t a r y DS T - M C 6 T r i b u t a r y 0 0. 5 1 1. 5 2 2. 5 3 DS T - M C 5 T r i b u t a r y D S T - M C 6 T r i b u t a r y L o g 1 0 ( T o t a l S u s p e n d e d S o l i d s ( m g / L ) x 1 0 ) Box Plot 5 St a t i s t i c a l C o m p a r i s o n Ti m e S e r i e s - M a n n - K e n d a l l ( M K ) T r e n d A n a l y s e s Sh a p i r o - W i l k ( S W ) a n d L i l l i e f o r s ( L ) N o r m a l i t y T e s t s Ev e n t T y p e Ye a r Si t e Gr o u p 2 v s G r o u p 1 DS C - M C 4 C o m m u n i t y DS C - M C 5 C o m m u n i t y DS C - M C 4 C o m m u n i t y DSC-MC5 Community Mi x R a i n / S n o w 2 0 0 9 - 1 0 D S C - M C 4 An a l y t e Co u n t ( n ) 8 8 p- v a l u e ( S W ) 0. 2 2 1 1 2 3 8 5 0.29379571 Sn o w m e l t 2 0 1 0 - 1 1 Tu r b i d i t y Co u n t ( n o n d e t e c t s ) 0 0 p- v a l u e ( L ) 1. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.00000000 Ra i n 2 0 1 1 - 1 2 SW S t a n d a r d S 0 8 No t e : V a l u e s s h o u l d b e g r e a t e r t h a n a l p h a ( 0 . 0 5 ) 20 1 2 - 1 3 No n e Va r S 65 65 Bo x P l o t 20 1 3 - 1 4 GW S t a n d a r d Tr e n d No n e In c r e a s i n g No n e p- v a l u e 0. 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. 1 9 3 2 3 8 1 2 St a n d a r d T y p e No n e Al p h a 0. 0 5 Me a n % D i f f e r e n c e ( r o b u s t R O S ) 74 . 6 6 2 1 1 6 0 4 Ev e n t T y p e Ye a r Si t e Mi x R a i n / S n o w 2 0 0 9 - 1 0 D S C - M C 5 Sn o w m e l t 2 0 1 0 - 1 1 Ra i n 2 0 1 1 - 1 2 20 1 2 - 1 3 20 1 3 - 1 4 t T e s t ( I n d e p e n d e n t ) Da t a Lo g D a t a Rk D a t a Me a n ( r o b u s t R O S ) G r o u p 1 18 3 . 1 2 5 0 0 0 0 0 2. 1 4 3 9 4 2 4 5 11 . 3 1 2 5 0 0 0 0 G r o u p 2 46 . 4 1. 4 1 1 6 4 7 0 5 4 5. 6 8 7 5 De l t a 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 St d ( r o b u s t R O S ) G r o u p 1 11 9 . 6 7 9 8 5 5 6 9 0. 3 8 0 1 7 7 9 5 4. 1 3 1 2 1 8 2 6 G r o u p 2 42 . 2 2 2 1 6 7 5 0. 5 7 8 9 2 6 8 5 5 3. 6 5 4 1 3 1 7 1 2 de g r e e s o f f r e e d o m 8. 7 1 5 8 9 5 8 2 12 . 0 9 0 7 2 0 0 4 13 . 7 9 4 3 4 3 0 4 Ef f e c t S i z e ( d ) -1 3 6 . 7 2 5 0 0 0 0 0 -0 . 7 3 2 2 9 5 3 9 -5 . 6 2 5 0 0 0 0 0 t S t a t i s t i c 3. 0 4 7 1 8 8 7 6 2. 9 9 0 5 4 4 3 7 2. 8 8 4 6 3 2 3 2 t C r i t i c a l 1. 8 5 9 5 4 8 0 4 1. 7 8 2 2 8 7 5 6 1. 7 7 0 9 3 3 4 0 p- v a l u e ( 2 - s i d e d ) 0. 0 1 8 6 5 6 9 5 0. 0 1 2 2 8 5 7 4 0. 0 1 3 7 1 2 1 4 Po w e r 0. 8 6 5 4 8 1 0 4 0. 8 7 4 8 8 9 6 7 0. 8 5 7 2 1 1 6 4 Po w e r A n a l y s i s Be t a NA NA NA Ad d i t i o n a l n ( e a c h G r o u p ) NA NA NA Su m m a r y S t a t i s t i c s Tu r b i d i t y n % d e c t mi n ma x me a n me d i a n ST D D E V CV Gr o u p 1 DS C - M C 4 8 10 0 % 32 . 0 0 0 33 0 18 3 . 1 2 5 18 5 . 0 0 0 11 9 . 6 8 0 0. 6 5 4 Gr o u p 2 DS C - M C 5 8 10 0 % 3. 7 0 0 0 12 0 . 0 0 0 46 . 4 0 0 41 . 5 0 0 42 . 2 2 2 0. 9 1 0 DS C - M C 5 C o m m u n i t y DS C - M C 4 C o m m u n i t y 050 10 0 15 0 20 0 25 0 30 0 35 0 1/ 1 1 / 1 4 3 / 2 / 1 4 4 / 2 1 / 1 4 6 / 1 0 / 1 4 7 / 3 0 / 1 4 9 / 1 8 / 1 4 T u r b i d i t y ( N T U ) Da t e Ti m e S e r i e s P l o t DS C - M C 4 C o m m u n i t y DS C - M C 5 C o m m u n i t y Op e n S y m b o l = L e f t - C e n s o r e d -2 . 0 -1 . 5 -1 . 0 -0 . 5 0. 0 0. 5 1. 0 1. 5 2. 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 N o r m a l Q u a n t i l e Tu r b i d i t y ( N T U ) Pa r a l l e l P r o b a b i l i t y P l o t DS C - M C 4 C o m m u n i t y DS C - M C 5 C o m m u n i t y 0 0. 5 1 1. 5 2 2. 5 3 DS C - M C 4 C o m m u n i t y D S C - M C 5 C o m m u n i t y L o g 1 0 ( T u r b i d i t y ( N T U ) ) Box Plot 6 St a t i s t i c a l C o m p a r i s o n Ti m e S e r i e s - M a n n - K e n d a l l ( M K ) T r e n d A n a l y s e s Sh a p i r o - W i l k ( S W ) a n d L i l l i e f o r s ( L ) N o r m a l i t y T e s t s Ev e n t T y p e Ye a r Si t e Gr o u p 2 v s G r o u p 1 DS T - M C 1 T r i b u t a r y DS T - M C 2 T r i b u t a r y DS T - M C 1 T r i b u t a r y DST-MC2 Tributary Mi x R a i n / S n o w 2 0 0 9 - 1 0 D S T - M C 1 An a l y t e Co u n t ( n ) 31 31 p- v a l u e ( S W ) 0. 0 5 8 3 7 2 9 9 0.43888409 Sn o w m e l t 2 0 1 0 - 1 1 Tu r b i d i t y Co u n t ( n o n d e t e c t s ) 0 0 p- v a l u e ( L ) 0. 1 1 6 6 5 6 6 6 0.37574952 Ra i n 2 0 1 1 - 1 2 SW S t a n d a r d S -2 0 2 -1 6 9 No t e : V a l u e s s h o u l d b e g r e a t e r t h a n a l p h a ( 0 . 0 5 ) 20 1 2 - 1 3 No n e Va r S 34 6 1 34 5 6 Bo x P l o t 20 1 3 - 1 4 GW S t a n d a r d Tr e n d De c r e a s i n g De c r e a s i n g No n e p- v a l u e 0. 0 0 0 3 1 6 8 4 0. 0 0 2 1 3 2 4 4 St a n d a r d T y p e No n e Al p h a 0. 0 5 Me a n % D i f f e r e n c e ( r o b u s t R O S ) 20 . 0 4 5 5 5 8 0 9 Ev e n t T y p e Ye a r Si t e Mi x R a i n / S n o w 2 0 0 9 - 1 0 D S T - M C 2 Sn o w m e l t 2 0 1 0 - 1 1 Ra i n 2 0 1 1 - 1 2 20 1 2 - 1 3 20 1 3 - 1 4 t T e s t ( I n d e p e n d e n t ) Da t a Lo g D a t a Rk D a t a Me a n ( r o b u s t R O S ) G r o u p 1 9. 9 1 2 9 0 3 2 3 0. 8 4 0 1 2 0 3 5 31 . 9 1 9 3 5 4 8 4 G r o u p 2 7. 9 2 5 8 0 6 4 5 2 0. 8 0 7 0 3 9 2 2 3 31 . 0 8 0 6 4 5 1 6 De l t a 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 St d ( r o b u s t R O S ) G r o u p 1 10 . 9 6 3 2 2 6 1 7 0. 3 4 3 3 2 1 1 5 18 . 6 7 8 9 0 8 2 4 G r o u p 2 5. 5 3 8 1 8 3 6 8 2 0. 2 8 7 1 5 2 4 5 5 17 . 6 7 2 5 2 8 9 5 de g r e e s o f f r e e d o m 44 . 3 7 5 0 9 0 2 9 58 . 1 8 1 8 2 5 7 8 59 . 8 1 6 8 9 5 6 8 Ef f e c t S i z e ( d ) -1 . 9 8 7 0 9 6 7 7 -0 . 0 3 3 0 8 1 1 3 -0 . 8 3 8 7 0 9 6 8 t S t a t i s t i c 0. 9 0 0 7 5 6 3 5 0. 4 1 1 5 2 1 5 2 0. 1 8 1 6 0 1 5 5 t C r i t i c a l 1. 6 8 0 2 2 9 9 8 1. 6 7 1 5 5 2 7 6 1. 6 7 1 0 9 3 0 3 p- v a l u e ( 2 - s i d e d ) 0. 3 7 2 7 3 5 3 0 0. 6 8 2 2 3 3 4 8 0. 8 5 6 5 2 8 6 1 Po w e r 0. 2 1 9 9 3 6 7 0 0. 1 0 6 3 5 2 2 1 0. 0 7 0 8 4 2 2 6 Po w e r A n a l y s i s Be t a 0. 2 0. 2 0. 2 Ad d i t i o n a l n ( e a c h G r o u p ) 83 >3 0 0 >3 0 0 Su m m a r y S t a t i s t i c s Tu r b i d i t y n % d e c t mi n ma x me a n me d i a n ST D D E V CV Gr o u p 1 DS T - M C 1 31 10 0 % 2. 2 0 0 54 9. 9 1 3 5. 7 0 0 10 . 9 6 3 1. 1 0 6 Gr o u p 2 DS T - M C 2 31 10 0 % 2. 1 0 0 0 27 . 0 0 0 7. 9 2 6 6. 5 0 0 5. 5 3 8 0. 6 9 9 DS T - M C 2 T r i b u t a r y DS T - M C 1 T r i b u t a r y 0102030405060 8/ 1 0 / 1 0 2 / 2 6 / 1 1 9 / 1 4 / 1 1 4 / 1 / 1 2 1 0 / 1 8 / 1 2 5 / 6 / 1 3 1 1 / 2 2 / 1 3 6 / 10 / 1 4 1 2 / 2 7 / 1 4 T u r b i d i t y ( N T U ) Da t e Ti m e S e r i e s P l o t DS T - M C 1 T r i b u t a r y DS T - M C 2 T r i b u t a r y Op e n S y m b o l = L e f t - C e n s o r e d -2 . 5 -2 . 0 -1 . 5 -1 . 0 -0 . 5 0. 0 0. 5 1. 0 1. 5 2. 0 2. 5 1 10 10 0 N o r m a l Q u a n t i l e Tu r b i d i t y ( N T U ) Pa r a l l e l P r o b a b i l i t y P l o t DS T - M C 1 T r i b u t a r y DS T - M C 2 T r i b u t a r y 0 0. 2 0. 4 0. 6 0. 8 1 1. 2 1. 4 1. 6 1. 8 2 DS T - M C 1 T r i b u t a r y D S T - M C 2 T r i b u t a r y L o g 1 0 ( T u r b i d i t y ( N T U ) ) Box Plot 7 St a t i s t i c a l C o m p a r i s o n Ti m e S e r i e s - M a n n - K e n d a l l ( M K ) T r e n d A n a l y s e s Sh a p i r o - W i l k ( S W ) a n d L i l l i e f o r s ( L ) N o r m a l i t y T e s t s Ev e n t T y p e Ye a r Si t e Gr o u p 2 v s G r o u p 1 DS T - M C 3 T r i b u t a r y DS T - M C 4 T r i b u t a r y DS T - M C 3 T r i b u t a r y DST-MC4 Tributary Mi x R a i n / S n o w 2 0 0 9 - 1 0 D S T - M C 3 An a l y t e Co u n t ( n ) 29 31 p- v a l u e ( S W ) 0. 4 0 2 7 2 5 2 5 0.34913727 Sn o w m e l t 2 0 1 0 - 1 1 Tu r b i d i t y Co u n t ( n o n d e t e c t s ) 0 0 p- v a l u e ( L ) 1. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.06959153 Ra i n 2 0 1 1 - 1 2 SW S t a n d a r d S -1 7 6 -5 5 No t e : V a l u e s s h o u l d b e g r e a t e r t h a n a l p h a ( 0 . 0 5 ) 20 1 2 - 1 3 No n e Va r S 28 4 2 34 5 5 Bo x P l o t 20 1 3 - 1 4 GW S t a n d a r d Tr e n d De c r e a s i n g De c r e a s i n g No n e p- v a l u e 0. 0 0 0 5 1 4 1 6 0. 1 7 9 1 2 8 4 6 St a n d a r d T y p e No n e Al p h a 0. 0 5 Me a n % D i f f e r e n c e ( r o b u s t R O S ) -1 8 . 6 6 5 6 3 5 8 9 Ev e n t T y p e Ye a r Si t e Mi x R a i n / S n o w 2 0 0 9 - 1 0 D S T - M C 4 Sn o w m e l t 2 0 1 0 - 1 1 Ra i n 2 0 1 1 - 1 2 20 1 2 - 1 3 20 1 3 - 1 4 t T e s t ( I n d e p e n d e n t ) Da t a Lo g D a t a Rk D a t a Me a n ( r o b u s t R O S ) G r o u p 1 7. 7 8 4 1 3 7 9 3 1. 7 0 1 4 5 8 4 2 27 . 8 2 7 5 8 6 2 1 G r o u p 2 9. 2 3 7 0 9 6 7 7 4 1. 8 6 0 9 3 1 9 8 8 33 De l t a 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 St d ( r o b u s t R O S ) G r o u p 1 7. 0 2 0 5 0 3 4 0 0. 4 5 5 9 2 9 8 1 19 . 4 5 8 4 1 5 3 0 G r o u p 2 7. 2 9 9 0 5 2 0 8 2 0. 3 0 6 1 0 0 0 1 3 15 . 2 6 0 5 1 5 5 de g r e e s o f f r e e d o m 57 . 9 5 1 4 7 7 1 9 48 . 5 3 7 0 3 5 3 6 53 . 0 8 7 6 1 4 4 7 Ef f e c t S i z e ( d ) 1. 4 5 2 9 5 8 8 4 0. 1 5 9 4 7 3 5 6 5. 1 7 2 4 1 3 7 9 t S t a t i s t i c -0 . 7 8 5 8 8 2 3 2 -1 . 5 7 9 7 6 0 1 3 -1 . 1 4 0 4 8 9 2 9 t C r i t i c a l -1 . 6 7 2 0 2 8 8 9 -1 . 6 7 7 2 2 4 2 0 -1 . 6 7 4 1 1 6 2 4 p- v a l u e ( 2 - s i d e d ) 0. 4 3 5 2 4 9 1 8 0. 1 2 0 8 6 9 1 5 0. 2 5 9 3 0 8 2 1 Po w e r 0. 1 8 9 6 3 0 9 9 0. 4 6 1 3 8 1 8 6 0. 2 9 7 9 1 5 3 3 Po w e r A n a l y s i s Be t a 0. 2 0. 2 0. 2 Ad d i t i o n a l n ( e a c h G r o u p ) 15 8 18 60 Su m m a r y S t a t i s t i c s Tu r b i d i t y n % d e c t mi n ma x me a n me d i a n ST D D E V CV Gr o u p 1 DS T - M C 3 29 10 0 % 0. 4 3 0 27 . 2 5 7. 7 8 4 5. 0 0 0 7. 0 2 1 0. 9 0 2 Gr o u p 2 DS T - M C 4 31 10 0 % 1. 5 0 0 0 32 . 0 0 0 9. 2 3 7 7. 8 0 0 7. 2 9 9 0. 7 9 0 DS T - M C 4 T r i b u t a r y DS T - M C 3 T r i b u t a r y 05101520253035 8/ 1 0 / 1 0 2 / 2 6 / 1 1 9 / 1 4 / 1 1 4 / 1 / 1 2 1 0 / 1 8 / 1 2 5 / 6 / 1 3 1 1 / 2 2 / 1 3 6 / 10 / 1 4 1 2 / 2 7 / 1 4 T u r b i d i t y ( N T U ) Da t e Ti m e S e r i e s P l o t DS T - M C 3 T r i b u t a r y DS T - M C 4 T r i b u t a r y Op e n S y m b o l = L e f t - C e n s o r e d -2 . 5 -2 . 0 -1 . 5 -1 . 0 -0 . 5 0. 0 0. 5 1. 0 1. 5 2. 0 2. 5 0. 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 N o r m a l Q u a n t i l e Tu r b i d i t y ( N T U ) Pa r a l l e l P r o b a b i l i t y P l o t DS T - M C 3 T r i b u t a r y DS T - M C 4 T r i b u t a r y 0 0. 5 1 1. 5 2 2. 5 3 DS T - M C 3 T r i b u t a r y D S T - M C 4 T r i b u t a r y L o g 1 0 ( T u r b i d i t y ( N T U ) x 1 0 ) Box Plot 8 St a t i s t i c a l C o m p a r i s o n Ti m e S e r i e s - M a n n - K e n d a l l ( M K ) T r e n d A n a l y s e s Sh a p i r o - W i l k ( S W ) a n d L i l l i e f o r s ( L ) N o r m a l i t y T e s t s Ev e n t T y p e Ye a r Si t e Gr o u p 2 v s G r o u p 1 DS T - M C 5 T r i b u t a r y DS T - M C 6 T r i b u t a r y DS T - M C 5 T r i b u t a r y DST-MC6 Tributary Mi x R a i n / S n o w 2 0 0 9 - 1 0 D S T - M C 5 An a l y t e Co u n t ( n ) 31 25 p- v a l u e ( S W ) 0. 1 0 7 4 2 9 0 6 0.00703285 Sn o w m e l t 2 0 1 0 - 1 1 Tu r b i d i t y Co u n t ( n o n d e t e c t s ) 0 0 p- v a l u e ( L ) 0. 0 7 1 5 9 6 7 8 0.12751280 Ra i n 2 0 1 1 - 1 2 SW S t a n d a r d S -1 3 4 -1 1 7 No t e : V a l u e s s h o u l d b e g r e a t e r t h a n a l p h a ( 0 . 0 5 ) 20 1 2 - 1 3 No n e Va r S 34 5 7 18 3 2 Bo x P l o t 20 1 3 - 1 4 GW S t a n d a r d Tr e n d De c r e a s i n g De c r e a s i n g No n e p- v a l u e 0. 0 1 1 8 4 3 8 3 0. 0 0 3 3 6 5 0 2 St a n d a r d T y p e No n e Al p h a 0. 0 5 Me a n % D i f f e r e n c e ( r o b u s t R O S ) 3. 5 4 8 2 5 0 2 6 5 Ev e n t T y p e Ye a r Si t e Mi x R a i n / S n o w 2 0 0 9 - 1 0 D S T - M C 6 Sn o w m e l t 2 0 1 0 - 1 1 Ra i n 2 0 1 1 - 1 2 20 1 2 - 1 3 20 1 3 - 1 4 t T e s t ( I n d e p e n d e n t ) Da t a Lo g D a t a Rk D a t a Me a n ( r o b u s t R O S ) G r o u p 1 8. 1 1 1 8 2 7 9 6 0. 7 7 7 4 2 6 2 9 32 . 1 6 1 2 9 0 3 2 G r o u p 2 7. 8 2 4 0. 6 4 7 5 9 6 6 8 3 23 . 9 6 De l t a 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 St d ( r o b u s t R O S ) G r o u p 1 8. 8 9 2 7 0 2 1 6 0. 3 0 9 9 6 7 2 3 14 . 1 8 4 1 3 8 5 0 G r o u p 2 13 . 5 2 0 5 7 1 6 7 0. 3 9 5 4 1 1 2 2 7 17 . 8 5 6 4 4 1 4 1 de g r e e s o f f r e e d o m 39 . 7 9 2 0 5 4 2 8 44 . 8 6 6 7 4 8 8 5 45 . 2 6 3 3 1 0 5 2 Ef f e c t S i z e ( d ) -0 . 2 8 7 8 2 7 9 6 -0 . 1 2 9 8 2 9 6 1 -8 . 2 0 1 2 9 0 3 2 t S t a t i s t i c 0. 0 9 1 6 4 8 1 9 1. 3 4 2 4 2 5 6 3 1. 8 6 9 5 3 4 4 0 t C r i t i c a l 1. 6 8 4 8 7 5 1 2 1. 6 8 0 2 2 9 9 8 1. 6 7 9 4 2 7 3 9 p- v a l u e ( 2 - s i d e d ) 0. 9 2 7 4 5 9 0 0 0. 1 8 6 5 0 2 7 1 0. 0 6 8 2 1 2 3 3 Po w e r 0. 0 5 9 5 9 1 4 7 0. 3 6 8 5 5 8 5 3 0. 4 2 5 0 4 0 1 4 Po w e r A n a l y s i s Be t a 0. 2 0. 2 0. 2 Ad d i t i o n a l n ( e a c h G r o u p ) >3 0 0 19 1 Su m m a r y S t a t i s t i c s Tu r b i d i t y n % d e c t mi n ma x me a n me d i a n ST D D E V CV Gr o u p 1 DS T - M C 5 31 10 0 % 2. 1 0 0 49 8. 1 1 2 5. 3 0 0 8. 8 9 3 1. 0 9 6 Gr o u p 2 DS T - M C 6 25 10 0 % 1. 6 0 0 0 68 . 0 0 0 7. 8 2 4 3. 5 0 0 13 . 5 2 1 1. 7 2 8 DS T - M C 6 T r i b u t a r y DS T - M C 5 T r i b u t a r y 01020304050607080 8/ 1 0 / 1 0 2 / 2 6 / 1 1 9 / 1 4 / 1 1 4 / 1 / 1 2 1 0 / 1 8 / 1 2 5 / 6 / 1 3 1 1 / 2 2 / 1 3 6 / 10 / 1 4 1 2 / 2 7 / 1 4 T u r b i d i t y ( N T U ) Da t e Ti m e S e r i e s P l o t DS T - M C 5 T r i b u t a r y DS T - M C 6 T r i b u t a r y Op e n S y m b o l = L e f t - C e n s o r e d -2 . 5 -2 . 0 -1 . 5 -1 . 0 -0 . 5 0. 0 0. 5 1. 0 1. 5 2. 0 2. 5 1 10 10 0 N o r m a l Q u a n t i l e Tu r b i d i t y ( N T U ) Pa r a l l e l P r o b a b i l i t y P l o t DS T - M C 5 T r i b u t a r y DS T - M C 6 T r i b u t a r y 0 0. 2 0. 4 0. 6 0. 8 1 1. 2 1. 4 1. 6 1. 8 2 DS T - M C 5 T r i b u t a r y D S T - M C 6 T r i b u t a r y L o g 1 0 ( T u r b i d i t y ( N T U ) ) Box Plot 9 St a t i s t i c a l C o m p a r i s o n Ti m e S e r i e s - M a n n - K e n d a l l ( M K ) T r e n d A n a l y s e s Sh a p i r o - W i l k ( S W ) a n d L i l l i e f o r s ( L ) N o r m a l i t y T e s t s Ev e n t T y p e Ye a r Si t e Gr o u p 2 v s G r o u p 1 DS C - M C 4 C o m m u n i t y DS C - M C 5 C o m m u n i t y DS C - M C 4 C o m m u n i t y DSC-MC5 Community Mi x R a i n / S n o w 2 0 0 9 - 1 0 D S C - M C 4 An a l y t e Co u n t ( n ) 8 8 p- v a l u e ( S W ) 0. 7 9 6 1 2 7 4 7 0.68537692 Sn o w m e l t 2 0 1 0 - 1 1 To t a l N i t r o g e n a s N Co u n t ( n o n d e t e c t s ) 0 1 p- v a l u e ( L ) 0. 8 3 6 3 6 7 0 0 0.91886384 Ra i n 2 0 1 1 - 1 2 SW S t a n d a r d S 14 2 No t e : V a l u e s s h o u l d b e g r e a t e r t h a n a l p h a ( 0 . 0 5 ) 20 1 2 - 1 3 No n e Va r S 65 65 Bo x P l o t 20 1 3 - 1 4 GW S t a n d a r d Tr e n d In c r e a s i n g In c r e a s i n g No n e p- v a l u e 0. 0 5 3 8 8 1 1 5 0. 4 5 0 7 6 9 3 1 St a n d a r d T y p e No n e Al p h a 0. 0 5 Me a n % D i f f e r e n c e ( r o b u s t R O S ) 72 . 6 5 6 9 2 1 7 5 Ev e n t T y p e Ye a r Si t e Mi x R a i n / S n o w 2 0 0 9 - 1 0 D S C - M C 5 Sn o w m e l t 2 0 1 0 - 1 1 Ra i n 2 0 1 1 - 1 2 20 1 2 - 1 3 20 1 3 - 1 4 t T e s t ( I n d e p e n d e n t ) Da t a Lo g D a t a Rk D a t a Me a n ( r o b u s t R O S ) G r o u p 1 2. 4 2 2 9 1 6 6 7 1. 1 8 3 8 7 4 0 8 10 . 8 7 5 0 0 0 0 0 G r o u p 2 0. 7 2 7 6 0 6 5 8 3 0. 7 6 1 1 1 2 7 6 5 6. 1 2 5 De l t a 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 St d ( r o b u s t R O S ) G r o u p 1 2. 9 9 7 4 2 9 2 9 0. 4 2 1 5 8 1 3 1 4. 2 9 0 7 7 0 8 3 G r o u p 2 0. 6 1 1 1 1 1 3 9 0. 3 3 6 5 7 7 9 5 3 4. 1 5 5 4 6 1 1 2 3 de g r e e s o f f r e e d o m 7. 5 8 0 9 2 6 5 0 13 . 3 4 5 5 2 0 2 1 13 . 9 8 5 6 5 0 0 1 Ef f e c t S i z e ( d ) -1 . 6 9 5 3 1 0 0 8 -0 . 4 2 2 7 6 1 3 1 -4 . 7 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 t S t a t i s t i c 1. 5 6 7 4 7 8 9 0 2. 2 1 6 5 7 3 5 9 2. 2 4 9 2 3 5 2 2 t C r i t i c a l 1. 8 9 4 5 7 8 6 1 1. 7 7 0 9 3 3 4 0 1. 7 7 0 9 3 3 4 0 p- v a l u e ( 2 - s i d e d ) 0. 1 6 8 0 4 7 7 9 0. 0 4 6 7 2 5 3 5 0. 0 4 4 0 5 7 8 8 Po w e r 0. 3 7 6 5 7 8 2 7 0. 6 6 8 4 0 5 8 1 0. 6 7 9 8 1 0 5 7 Po w e r A n a l y s i s Be t a 0. 2 NA NA Ad d i t i o n a l n ( e a c h G r o u p ) 5 NA NA Su m m a r y S t a t i s t i c s Tu r b i d i t y n % d e c t mi n ma x me a n me d i a n ST D D E V CV Gr o u p 1 DS C - M C 4 8 10 0 % 0. 3 7 0 9. 6 2. 4 2 3 1. 3 9 0 2. 9 9 7 1. 2 3 7 Gr o u p 2 DS C - M C 5 8 88 % 0. 1 8 0 0 1. 8 0 0 0. 7 2 8 0. 4 7 0 0. 6 1 1 0. 8 4 0 DS C - M C 5 C o m m u n i t y DS C - M C 4 C o m m u n i t y 024681012 1/ 1 1 / 1 4 3 / 2 / 1 4 4 / 2 1 / 1 4 6 / 1 0 / 1 4 7 / 3 0 / 1 4 9 / 1 8 / 1 4 T o t a l N i t r o g e n a s N ( m g / L ) Da t e Ti m e S e r i e s P l o t DS C - M C 4 C o m m u n i t y DS C - M C 5 C o m m u n i t y Op e n S y m b o l = L e f t - C e n s o r e d -2 . 0 -1 . 5 -1 . 0 -0 . 5 0. 0 0. 5 1. 0 1. 5 2. 0 0. 1 1 10 N o r m a l Q u a n t i l e To t a l N i t r o g e n a s N ( m g / L ) Pa r a l l e l P r o b a b i l i t y P l o t DS C - M C 4 C o m m u n i t y DS C - M C 5 C o m m u n i t y 0 0. 5 1 1. 5 2 2. 5 DS C - M C 4 C o m m u n i t y D S C - M C 5 C o m m u n i t y L o g 1 0 ( T o t a l N i t r o g e n a s N ( m g / L ) x 1 0 ) Box Plot 10 St a t i s t i c a l C o m p a r i s o n Ti m e S e r i e s - M a n n - K e n d a l l ( M K ) T r e n d A n a l y s e s Sh a p i r o - W i l k ( S W ) a n d L i l l i e f o r s ( L ) N o r m a l i t y T e s t s Ev e n t T y p e Ye a r Si t e Gr o u p 2 v s G r o u p 1 DS T - M C 1 T r i b u t a r y DS T - M C 2 T r i b u t a r y DS T - M C 1 T r i b u t a r y DST-MC2 Tributary Mi x R a i n / S n o w 2 0 0 9 - 1 0 D S T - M C 1 An a l y t e Co u n t ( n ) 29 31 p- v a l u e ( S W ) 0. 0 8 1 3 8 7 9 9 0.12293355 Sn o w m e l t 2 0 1 0 - 1 1 To t a l N i t r o g e n a s N Co u n t ( n o n d e t e c t s ) 3 6 p- v a l u e ( L ) 0. 0 4 8 3 8 9 9 5 0.01395465 Ra i n 2 0 1 1 - 1 2 SW S t a n d a r d S -1 0 1 -1 1 4 No t e : V a l u e s s h o u l d b e g r e a t e r t h a n a l p h a ( 0 . 0 5 ) 20 1 2 - 1 3 No n e Va r S 28 4 1 34 4 9 Bo x P l o t 20 1 3 - 1 4 GW S t a n d a r d Tr e n d De c r e a s i n g De c r e a s i n g No n e p- v a l u e 0. 0 3 0 3 1 8 2 8 0. 0 2 7 1 7 5 6 8 St a n d a r d T y p e No n e Al p h a 0. 0 5 Me a n % D i f f e r e n c e ( r o b u s t R O S ) 34 . 1 6 9 3 7 9 7 Ev e n t T y p e Ye a r Si t e Mi x R a i n / S n o w 2 0 0 9 - 1 0 D S T - M C 2 Sn o w m e l t 2 0 1 0 - 1 1 Ra i n 2 0 1 1 - 1 2 20 1 2 - 1 3 20 1 3 - 1 4 t T e s t ( I n d e p e n d e n t ) Da t a Lo g D a t a Rk D a t a Me a n ( r o b u s t R O S ) G r o u p 1 0. 4 6 8 9 9 5 0 7 1. 5 8 3 2 2 5 0 7 33 . 9 8 2 7 5 8 6 2 G r o u p 2 0. 3 4 5 2 9 5 5 0 4 1. 4 7 5 4 5 0 9 0 3 27 . 2 4 1 9 3 5 4 8 De l t a 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 St d ( r o b u s t R O S ) G r o u p 1 0. 3 6 2 2 1 5 8 6 0. 2 7 8 0 4 3 8 9 16 . 6 2 2 6 4 0 9 5 G r o u p 2 0. 2 4 4 5 2 1 5 6 2 0. 2 5 6 2 9 7 4 2 17 . 8 4 4 6 4 0 1 7 de g r e e s o f f r e e d o m 48 . 7 0 1 5 3 7 8 0 56 . 7 4 2 6 9 1 3 3 57 . 9 9 9 4 4 5 0 6 Ef f e c t S i z e ( d ) -0 . 1 2 3 6 9 9 5 6 -0 . 1 0 7 7 7 4 1 7 -6 . 7 4 0 8 2 3 1 4 t S t a t i s t i c 1. 5 3 9 8 9 5 4 0 1. 5 5 8 0 5 7 2 0 1. 5 1 4 8 8 8 1 0 t C r i t i c a l 1. 6 7 7 2 2 4 2 0 1. 6 7 2 5 2 2 3 0 1. 6 7 2 0 2 8 8 9 p- v a l u e ( 2 - s i d e d ) 0. 1 3 0 2 9 2 1 2 0. 1 2 4 9 5 5 8 1 0. 1 3 5 4 2 5 1 5 Po w e r 0. 4 4 5 6 7 2 6 7 0. 4 5 4 6 3 9 2 6 0. 4 3 7 8 4 4 6 0 Po w e r A n a l y s i s Be t a 0. 2 0. 2 0. 2 Ad d i t i o n a l n ( e a c h G r o u p ) 9 8 10 Su m m a r y S t a t i s t i c s Tu r b i d i t y n % d e c t mi n ma x me a n me d i a n ST D D E V CV Gr o u p 1 DS T - M C 1 29 90 % 0. 1 2 0 1. 5 8 7 0. 4 6 9 0. 3 7 0 0. 3 6 2 0. 7 7 2 Gr o u p 2 DS T - M C 2 31 81 % 0. 1 0 0 0 1. 1 0 0 0. 3 4 5 0. 2 4 0 0. 2 4 5 0. 7 0 8 DS T - M C 2 T r i b u t a r y DS T - M C 1 T r i b u t a r y 0 0. 2 0. 4 0. 6 0. 8 1 1. 2 1. 4 1. 6 1. 8 8/ 1 0 / 1 0 2 / 2 6 / 1 1 9 / 1 4 / 1 1 4 / 1 / 1 2 1 0 / 1 8 / 1 2 5 / 6 / 1 3 1 1 / 2 2 / 1 3 6 / 10 / 1 4 1 2 / 2 7 / 1 4 T o t a l N i t r o g e n a s N ( m g / L ) Da t e Ti m e S e r i e s P l o t DS T - M C 1 T r i b u t a r y DS T - M C 2 T r i b u t a r y Op e n S y m b o l = L e f t - C e n s o r e d -2 . 5 -2 . 0 -1 . 5 -1 . 0 -0 . 5 0. 0 0. 5 1. 0 1. 5 2. 0 2. 5 0. 1 1 10 N o r m a l Q u a n t i l e To t a l N i t r o g e n a s N ( m g / L ) Pa r a l l e l P r o b a b i l i t y P l o t DS T - M C 1 T r i b u t a r y DS T - M C 2 T r i b u t a r y 0 0. 5 1 1. 5 2 2. 5 DS T - M C 1 T r i b u t a r y D S T - M C 2 T r i b u t a r y L o g 1 0 ( T o t a l N i t r o g e n a s N ( m g / L ) x 1 0 0 ) Box Plot 11 St a t i s t i c a l C o m p a r i s o n Ti m e S e r i e s - M a n n - K e n d a l l ( M K ) T r e n d A n a l y s e s Sh a p i r o - W i l k ( S W ) a n d L i l l i e f o r s ( L ) N o r m a l i t y T e s t s Ev e n t T y p e Ye a r Si t e Gr o u p 2 v s G r o u p 1 DS T - M C 3 T r i b u t a r y DS T - M C 4 T r i b u t a r y DS T - M C 3 T r i b u t a r y DST-MC4 Tributary Mi x R a i n / S n o w 2 0 0 9 - 1 0 D S T - M C 3 An a l y t e Co u n t ( n ) 29 31 p- v a l u e ( S W ) 0. 8 3 4 3 8 9 6 7 0.00447503 Sn o w m e l t 2 0 1 0 - 1 1 To t a l N i t r o g e n a s N Co u n t ( n o n d e t e c t s ) 6 3 p- v a l u e ( L ) 0. 6 4 2 2 4 0 4 2 0.25552539 Ra i n 2 0 1 1 - 1 2 SW S t a n d a r d S -1 1 2 -9 4 No t e : V a l u e s s h o u l d b e g r e a t e r t h a n a l p h a ( 0 . 0 5 ) 20 1 2 - 1 3 No n e Va r S 28 3 5 34 6 1 Bo x P l o t 20 1 3 - 1 4 GW S t a n d a r d Tr e n d De c r e a s i n g De c r e a s i n g No n e p- v a l u e 0. 0 1 8 5 5 3 2 1 0. 0 5 6 9 5 1 0 1 St a n d a r d T y p e No n e Al p h a 0. 0 5 Me a n % D i f f e r e n c e ( r o b u s t R O S ) -4 0 . 3 3 2 5 4 3 2 Ev e n t T y p e Ye a r Si t e Mi x R a i n / S n o w 2 0 0 9 - 1 0 D S T - M C 4 Sn o w m e l t 2 0 1 0 - 1 1 Ra i n 2 0 1 1 - 1 2 20 1 2 - 1 3 20 1 3 - 1 4 t T e s t ( I n d e p e n d e n t ) Da t a Lo g D a t a Rk D a t a Me a n ( r o b u s t R O S ) G r o u p 1 0. 3 8 7 9 3 0 7 8 1. 5 2 2 2 7 7 4 4 27 . 0 8 6 2 0 6 9 0 G r o u p 2 0. 4 7 9 9 9 0 5 3 1 1. 5 7 1 4 3 8 6 9 6 33 . 6 9 3 5 4 8 3 9 De l t a 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 St d ( r o b u s t R O S ) G r o u p 1 0. 2 7 0 5 6 9 1 5 0. 2 5 7 2 7 3 7 9 16 . 8 1 0 4 2 8 8 2 G r o u p 2 0. 3 1 1 9 0 9 7 7 6 0. 3 6 9 1 8 9 3 6 3 17 . 7 2 1 7 7 4 4 7 de g r e e s o f f r e e d o m 57 . 6 8 4 3 4 1 9 6 53 . 7 2 0 4 0 4 7 1 57 . 9 8 6 8 7 4 1 6 Ef f e c t S i z e ( d ) 0. 0 9 2 0 5 9 7 5 0. 0 4 9 1 6 1 2 6 6. 6 0 7 3 4 1 4 9 t S t a t i s t i c -1 . 2 2 3 3 6 8 8 8 -0 . 6 0 1 5 3 4 5 2 -1 . 4 8 2 0 6 6 2 3 t C r i t i c a l -1 . 6 7 2 0 2 8 8 9 -1 . 6 7 4 1 1 6 2 4 -1 . 6 7 2 0 2 8 8 9 p- v a l u e ( 2 - s i d e d ) 0. 2 2 6 3 1 3 3 6 0. 5 5 0 0 9 7 6 5 0. 1 4 3 9 2 8 3 8 Po w e r 0. 3 2 7 6 8 8 9 9 0. 1 4 4 1 5 9 2 2 0. 4 2 5 0 0 6 6 4 Po w e r A n a l y s i s Be t a 0. 2 0. 2 0. 2 Ad d i t i o n a l n ( e a c h G r o u p ) 49 29 3 24 Su m m a r y S t a t i s t i c s Tu r b i d i t y n % d e c t mi n ma x me a n me d i a n ST D D E V CV Gr o u p 1 DS T - M C 3 29 79 % 0. 1 0 0 1. 2 7 0. 3 8 8 0. 3 4 0 0. 2 7 1 0. 6 9 7 Gr o u p 2 DS T - M C 4 31 90 % 0. 0 3 5 0 1. 3 4 3 0. 4 8 0 0. 3 9 5 0. 3 1 2 0. 6 5 0 DS T - M C 4 T r i b u t a r y DS T - M C 3 T r i b u t a r y 0 0. 2 0. 4 0. 6 0. 8 1 1. 2 1. 4 1. 6 8/ 1 0 / 1 0 2 / 2 6 / 1 1 9 / 1 4 / 1 1 4 / 1 / 1 2 1 0 / 1 8 / 1 2 5 / 6 / 1 3 1 1 / 2 2 / 1 3 6 / 10 / 1 4 1 2 / 2 7 / 1 4 T o t a l N i t r o g e n a s N ( m g / L ) Da t e Ti m e S e r i e s P l o t DS T - M C 3 T r i b u t a r y DS T - M C 4 T r i b u t a r y Op e n S y m b o l = L e f t - C e n s o r e d -2 . 5 -2 . 0 -1 . 5 -1 . 0 -0 . 5 0. 0 0. 5 1. 0 1. 5 2. 0 2. 5 0. 0 1 0 . 1 1 1 0 N o r m a l Q u a n t i l e To t a l N i t r o g e n a s N ( m g / L ) Pa r a l l e l P r o b a b i l i t y P l o t DS T - M C 3 T r i b u t a r y DS T - M C 4 T r i b u t a r y 0 0. 5 1 1. 5 2 2. 5 DS T - M C 3 T r i b u t a r y D S T - M C 4 T r i b u t a r y L o g 1 0 ( T o t a l N i t r o g e n a s N ( m g / L ) x 1 0 0 ) Box Plot 12 St a t i s t i c a l C o m p a r i s o n Ti m e S e r i e s - M a n n - K e n d a l l ( M K ) T r e n d A n a l y s e s Sh a p i r o - W i l k ( S W ) a n d L i l l i e f o r s ( L ) N o r m a l i t y T e s t s Ev e n t T y p e Ye a r Si t e Gr o u p 2 v s G r o u p 1 DS T - M C 5 T r i b u t a r y DS T - M C 6 T r i b u t a r y DS T - M C 5 T r i b u t a r y DST-MC6 Tributary Mi x R a i n / S n o w 2 0 0 9 - 1 0 D S T - M C 5 An a l y t e Co u n t ( n ) 31 25 p- v a l u e ( S W ) 0. 1 7 3 4 0 0 6 8 0.00500930 Sn o w m e l t 2 0 1 0 - 1 1 To t a l N i t r o g e n a s N Co u n t ( n o n d e t e c t s ) 4 0 p- v a l u e ( L ) 0. 0 7 7 1 7 7 7 6 0.06853085 Ra i n 2 0 1 1 - 1 2 SW S t a n d a r d S -7 9 -3 1 No t e : V a l u e s s h o u l d b e g r e a t e r t h a n a l p h a ( 0 . 0 5 ) 20 1 2 - 1 3 No n e Va r S 34 6 0 18 3 2 Bo x P l o t 20 1 3 - 1 4 GW S t a n d a r d Tr e n d De c r e a s i n g De c r e a s i n g No n e p- v a l u e 0. 0 9 2 4 0 2 6 8 0. 2 4 1 7 0 1 3 7 St a n d a r d T y p e No n e Al p h a 0. 0 5 Me a n % D i f f e r e n c e ( r o b u s t R O S ) -9 9 . 1 6 5 1 5 4 2 6 Ev e n t T y p e Ye a r Si t e Mi x R a i n / S n o w 2 0 0 9 - 1 0 D S T - M C 6 Sn o w m e l t 2 0 1 0 - 1 1 Ra i n 2 0 1 1 - 1 2 20 1 2 - 1 3 20 1 3 - 1 4 t T e s t ( I n d e p e n d e n t ) Da t a Lo g D a t a Rk D a t a Me a n ( r o b u s t R O S ) G r o u p 1 0. 4 0 2 9 3 6 7 4 0. 5 2 8 1 7 8 5 5 23 . 0 1 6 1 2 9 0 3 G r o u p 2 0. 7 1 9 8 0. 7 4 8 7 2 7 3 0 5 35 . 3 De l t a 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 St d ( r o b u s t R O S ) G r o u p 1 0. 3 0 4 1 0 6 1 2 0. 2 6 5 2 9 5 9 2 16 . 7 6 0 3 1 2 1 8 G r o u p 2 0. 7 5 3 2 1 5 2 7 5 0. 2 7 0 9 9 1 6 6 4 13 . 0 9 0 2 3 1 7 3 de g r e e s o f f r e e d o m 30 . 3 0 5 8 0 5 1 3 51 . 0 4 2 9 5 0 9 4 53 . 9 5 8 4 4 0 2 2 Ef f e c t S i z e ( d ) 0. 3 1 6 8 6 3 2 6 0. 2 2 0 5 4 8 7 6 12 . 2 8 3 8 7 0 9 7 t S t a t i s t i c -1 . 9 7 7 4 4 0 1 7 -3 . 0 5 6 1 5 6 8 3 -3 . 0 7 9 0 8 8 2 7 t C r i t i c a l -1 . 6 9 7 2 6 0 8 9 -1 . 6 7 5 2 8 4 9 5 -1 . 6 7 4 1 1 6 2 4 p- v a l u e ( 2 - s i d e d ) 0. 0 5 7 5 6 6 0 8 0. 0 0 3 5 9 2 4 3 0. 0 0 3 3 1 2 4 5 Po w e r 0. 3 9 0 6 3 1 4 7 0. 9 1 3 3 3 0 0 6 0. 9 1 7 0 6 8 0 5 Po w e r A n a l y s i s Be t a 0. 2 NA NA Ad d i t i o n a l n ( e a c h G r o u p ) 2 NA NA Su m m a r y S t a t i s t i c s Tu r b i d i t y n % d e c t mi n ma x me a n me d i a n ST D D E V CV Gr o u p 1 DS T - M C 5 31 87 % 0. 1 2 0 1. 5 5 0. 4 0 3 0. 2 8 0 0. 3 0 4 0. 7 5 5 Gr o u p 2 DS T - M C 6 25 10 0 % 0. 2 0 4 0 3. 8 1 4 0. 7 2 0 0. 5 1 0 0. 7 5 3 1. 0 4 6 DS T - M C 6 T r i b u t a r y DS T - M C 5 T r i b u t a r y 0 0. 5 1 1. 5 2 2. 5 3 3. 5 4 4. 5 8/ 1 0 / 1 0 2 / 2 6 / 1 1 9 / 1 4 / 1 1 4 / 1 / 1 2 1 0 / 1 8 / 1 2 5 / 6 / 1 3 1 1 / 2 2 / 1 3 6 / 10 / 1 4 1 2 / 2 7 / 1 4 T o t a l N i t r o g e n a s N ( m g / L ) Da t e Ti m e S e r i e s P l o t DS T - M C 5 T r i b u t a r y DS T - M C 6 T r i b u t a r y Op e n S y m b o l = L e f t - C e n s o r e d -2 . 5 -2 . 0 -1 . 5 -1 . 0 -0 . 5 0. 0 0. 5 1. 0 1. 5 2. 0 2. 5 0. 1 1 10 N o r m a l Q u a n t i l e To t a l N i t r o g e n a s N ( m g / L ) Pa r a l l e l P r o b a b i l i t y P l o t DS T - M C 5 T r i b u t a r y DS T - M C 6 T r i b u t a r y 0 0. 2 0. 4 0. 6 0. 8 1 1. 2 1. 4 1. 6 1. 8 DS T - M C 5 T r i b u t a r y D S T - M C 6 T r i b u t a r y L o g 1 0 ( T o t a l N i t r o g e n a s N ( m g / L ) x 1 0 ) Box Plot 13 St a t i s t i c a l C o m p a r i s o n Ti m e S e r i e s - M a n n - K e n d a l l ( M K ) T r e n d A n a l y s e s Sh a p i r o - W i l k ( S W ) a n d L i l l i e f o r s ( L ) N o r m a l i t y T e s t s Ev e n t T y p e Ye a r Si t e Gr o u p 2 v s G r o u p 1 DS C - M C 4 C o m m u n i t y DS C - M C 5 C o m m u n i t y DS C - M C 4 C o m m u n i t y DSC-MC5 Community Mi x R a i n / S n o w 2 0 0 9 - 1 0 D S C - M C 4 An a l y t e Co u n t ( n ) 8 8 p- v a l u e ( S W ) 0. 9 1 4 3 9 2 5 3 0.70329904 Sn o w m e l t 2 0 1 0 - 1 1 To t a l P h o s p h o r u s Co u n t ( n o n d e t e c t s ) 0 0 p- v a l u e ( L ) 1. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.00000000 Ra i n 2 0 1 1 - 1 2 SW S t a n d a r d S -1 0 -1 0 No t e : V a l u e s s h o u l d b e g r e a t e r t h a n a l p h a ( 0 . 0 5 ) 20 1 2 - 1 3 No n e Va r S 65 65 Bo x P l o t 20 1 3 - 1 4 GW S t a n d a r d Tr e n d De c r e a s i n g De c r e a s i n g No n e p- v a l u e 0. 1 3 2 7 5 5 1 9 0. 1 3 2 7 5 5 1 9 St a n d a r d T y p e No n e Al p h a 0. 0 5 Me a n % D i f f e r e n c e ( r o b u s t R O S ) 69 . 2 3 0 7 6 9 2 3 Ev e n t T y p e Ye a r Si t e Mi x R a i n / S n o w 2 0 0 9 - 1 0 D S C - M C 5 Sn o w m e l t 2 0 1 0 - 1 1 Ra i n 2 0 1 1 - 1 2 20 1 2 - 1 3 20 1 3 - 1 4 t T e s t ( I n d e p e n d e n t ) Da t a Lo g D a t a Rk D a t a Me a n ( r o b u s t R O S ) G r o u p 1 0. 2 2 9 1 2 5 0 0 1. 2 9 1 8 6 9 6 6 11 . 8 7 5 0 0 0 0 0 G r o u p 2 0. 0 7 0 5 0. 7 6 2 0 9 6 7 0 4 5. 1 2 5 De l t a 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 St d ( r o b u s t R O S ) G r o u p 1 0. 1 3 2 2 1 1 3 4 0. 2 6 8 5 6 6 6 2 3. 4 4 0 8 2 6 3 1 G r o u p 2 0. 0 4 2 7 0 1 6 2 3 0. 3 1 6 1 3 8 6 1 7 3. 2 7 0 5 3 9 4 9 2 de g r e e s o f f r e e d o m 8. 4 4 4 7 0 4 2 7 13 . 6 4 3 4 8 0 5 1 13 . 9 6 4 0 8 6 8 3 Ef f e c t S i z e ( d ) -0 . 1 5 8 6 2 5 0 0 -0 . 5 2 9 7 7 2 9 6 -6 . 7 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 t S t a t i s t i c 3. 2 2 9 2 4 6 5 9 3. 6 1 2 2 6 9 2 6 4. 0 2 1 7 3 1 7 7 t C r i t i c a l 1. 8 5 9 5 4 8 0 4 1. 7 7 0 9 3 3 4 0 1. 7 7 0 9 3 3 4 0 p- v a l u e ( 2 - s i d e d ) 0. 0 1 4 4 6 6 8 4 0. 0 0 3 5 6 4 7 5 0. 0 0 1 6 9 4 1 8 Po w e r 0. 8 9 6 0 0 4 9 0 0. 9 5 5 7 5 0 2 6 0. 9 7 8 8 2 7 5 2 Po w e r A n a l y s i s Be t a NA NA NA Ad d i t i o n a l n ( e a c h G r o u p ) NA NA NA Su m m a r y S t a t i s t i c s Tu r b i d i t y n % d e c t mi n ma x me a n me d i a n ST D D E V CV Gr o u p 1 DS C - M C 4 8 10 0 % 0. 0 7 7 0. 4 7 0. 2 2 9 0. 2 1 5 0. 1 3 2 0. 5 7 7 Gr o u p 2 DS C - M C 5 8 10 0 % 0. 0 1 5 0 0. 1 4 0 0. 0 7 1 0. 0 6 1 0. 0 4 3 0. 6 0 6 DS C - M C 5 C o m m u n i t y DS C - M C 4 C o m m u n i t y 0 0. 0 5 0. 1 0. 1 5 0. 2 0. 2 5 0. 3 0. 3 5 0. 4 0. 4 5 0. 5 1/ 1 1 / 1 4 3 / 2 / 1 4 4 / 2 1 / 1 4 6 / 1 0 / 1 4 7 / 3 0 / 1 4 9 / 1 8 / 1 4 T o t a l P h o s p h o r u s ( m g / L ) Da t e Ti m e S e r i e s P l o t DS C - M C 4 C o m m u n i t y DS C - M C 5 C o m m u n i t y Op e n S y m b o l = L e f t - C e n s o r e d -2 . 0 -1 . 5 -1 . 0 -0 . 5 0. 0 0. 5 1. 0 1. 5 2. 0 0. 0 1 0. 1 1 N o r m a l Q u a n t i l e To t a l P h o s p h o r u s ( m g / L ) Pa r a l l e l P r o b a b i l i t y P l o t DS C - M C 4 C o m m u n i t y DS C - M C 5 C o m m u n i t y 0 0. 2 0. 4 0. 6 0. 8 1 1. 2 1. 4 1. 6 1. 8 DS C - M C 4 C o m m u n i t y D S C - M C 5 C o m m u n i t y L o g 1 0 ( T o t a l P h o s p h o r u s ( m g / L ) x 1 0 0 ) Box Plot 14 ta t i s t i c a l C o m p a r i s o n Ti m e S e r i e s - M a n n - K e n d a l l ( M K ) T r e n d A n a l y s e s Sh a p i r o - W i l k ( S W ) a n d L i l l i e f o r s ( L ) N o r m a l i t y T e s t s Ev e n t T y p e Ye a r Si t e Gr o u p 2 v s G r o u p 1 DS T - M C 1 T r i b u t a r y DS T - M C 2 T r i b u t a r y DS T - M C 1 T r i b u t a r y DST-MC2 Tributary Mi x R a i n / S n o w 2 0 0 9 - 1 0 D S T - M C 1 An a l y t e Co u n t ( n ) 31 31 p- v a l u e ( S W ) 0. 1 5 5 3 2 5 4 9 0.19282684 Sn o w m e l t 2 0 1 0 - 1 1 To t a l P h o s p h o r u s Co u n t ( n o n d e t e c t s ) 0 0 p- v a l u e ( L ) 0. 0 8 2 1 8 1 6 5 0.55738634 Ra i n 2 0 1 1 - 1 2 SW S t a n d a r d S -8 8 -1 4 3 No t e : V a l u e s s h o u l d b e g r e a t e r t h a n a l p h a ( 0 . 0 5 ) 20 1 2 - 1 3 No n e Va r S 34 5 9 34 4 6 Bo x P l o t 20 1 3 - 1 4 GW S t a n d a r d Tr e n d De c r e a s i n g De c r e a s i n g No n e p- v a l u e 0. 0 6 9 5 2 6 1 4 0. 0 0 7 7 8 4 7 4 St a n d a r d T y p e No n e Al p h a 0. 0 5 Me a n % D i f f e r e n c e ( r o b u s t R O S ) 21 . 9 8 2 5 7 9 8 4 Ev e n t T y p e Ye a r Si t e Mi x R a i n / S n o w 2 0 0 9 - 1 0 D S T - M C 2 Sn o w m e l t 2 0 1 0 - 1 1 Ra i n 2 0 1 1 - 1 2 20 1 2 - 1 3 20 1 3 - 1 4 t T e s t ( I n d e p e n d e n t ) Da t a Lo g D a t a Rk D a t a Me a n ( r o b u s t R O S ) G r o u p 1 0. 0 7 7 7 7 4 1 9 0. 8 0 7 6 0 7 2 7 34 . 1 7 7 4 1 9 3 5 G r o u p 2 0. 0 6 0 6 7 7 4 1 9 0. 7 2 7 9 3 7 4 3 6 28 . 8 2 2 5 8 0 6 5 De l t a 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 St d ( r o b u s t R O S ) G r o u p 1 0. 0 5 5 5 8 5 8 0 0. 2 6 0 8 5 3 9 5 18 . 2 9 8 2 4 5 9 9 G r o u p 2 0. 0 3 4 2 1 7 3 3 2 0. 2 1 4 4 9 6 8 5 9 17 . 6 5 2 9 2 6 2 9 de g r e e s o f f r e e d o m 49 . 8 8 1 3 0 5 6 2 57 . 8 4 0 8 7 8 6 0 59 . 9 2 2 8 2 1 5 3 Ef f e c t S i z e ( d ) -0 . 0 1 7 0 9 6 7 7 -0 . 0 7 9 6 6 9 8 3 -5 . 3 5 4 8 3 8 7 1 t S t a t i s t i c 1. 4 5 8 3 4 1 7 6 1. 3 1 3 4 6 9 7 5 1. 1 7 2 6 2 5 2 2 t C r i t i c a l 1. 6 7 6 5 5 0 8 9 1. 6 7 2 0 2 8 8 9 1. 6 7 1 0 9 3 0 3 p- v a l u e ( 2 - s i d e d ) 0. 1 5 1 2 5 9 0 7 0. 1 9 4 3 8 0 8 7 0. 2 4 5 7 3 9 8 9 Po w e r 0. 4 1 4 0 8 6 2 1 0. 3 6 0 6 2 4 7 8 0. 3 1 0 0 0 3 8 0 Po w e r A n a l y s i s Be t a 0. 2 0. 2 0. 2 Ad d i t i o n a l n ( e a c h G r o u p ) 14 23 37 Su m m a r y S t a t i s t i c s Tu r b i d i t y n % d e c t mi n ma x me a n me d i a n ST D D E V CV Gr o u p 1 DS T - M C 1 31 10 0 % 0. 0 2 2 0. 2 4 4 0. 0 7 8 0. 0 5 6 0. 0 5 6 0. 7 1 5 Gr o u p 2 DS T - M C 2 31 10 0 % 0. 0 2 3 0 0. 1 5 2 0. 0 6 1 0. 0 5 0 0. 0 3 4 0. 5 6 4 DS T - M C 2 T r i b u t a r y DS T - M C 1 T r i b u t a r y 0 0. 0 5 0. 1 0. 1 5 0. 2 0. 2 5 0. 3 8/ 1 0 / 1 0 2 / 2 6 / 1 1 9 / 1 4 / 1 1 4 / 1 / 1 2 1 0 / 1 8 / 1 2 5 / 6 / 1 3 1 1 / 2 2 / 1 3 6 / 10 / 1 4 1 2 / 2 7 / 1 4 T o t a l P h o s p h o r u s ( m g / L ) Da t e Ti m e S e r i e s P l o t DS T - M C 1 T r i b u t a r y DS T - M C 2 T r i b u t a r y Op e n S y m b o l = L e f t - C e n s o r e d -2 . 5 -2 . 0 -1 . 5 -1 . 0 -0 . 5 0. 0 0. 5 1. 0 1. 5 2. 0 2. 5 0. 0 1 0. 1 1 N o r m a l Q u a n t i l e To t a l P h o s p h o r u s ( m g / L ) Pa r a l l e l P r o b a b i l i t y P l o t DS T - M C 1 T r i b u t a r y DS T - M C 2 T r i b u t a r y 0 0. 2 0. 4 0. 6 0. 8 1 1. 2 1. 4 1. 6 DS T - M C 1 T r i b u t a r y D S T - M C 2 T r i b u t a r y L o g 1 0 ( T o t a l P h o s p h o r u s ( m g / L ) x 1 0 0 ) Box Plot 15 St a t i s t i c a l C o m p a r i s o n Ti m e S e r i e s - M a n n - K e n d a l l ( M K ) T r e n d A n a l y s e s Sh a p i r o - W i l k ( S W ) a n d L i l l i e f o r s ( L ) N o r m a l i t y T e s t s Ev e n t T y p e Ye a r Si t e Gr o u p 2 v s G r o u p 1 DS T - M C 3 T r i b u t a r y DS T - M C 4 T r i b u t a r y DS T - M C 3 T r i b u t a r y DST-MC4 Tributary Mi x R a i n / S n o w 2 0 0 9 - 1 0 D S T - M C 3 An a l y t e Co u n t ( n ) 29 31 p- v a l u e ( S W ) 0. 6 7 1 7 3 6 4 9 0.25918891 Sn o w m e l t 2 0 1 0 - 1 1 To t a l P h o s p h o r u s Co u n t ( n o n d e t e c t s ) 0 0 p- v a l u e ( L ) 0. 6 0 7 2 8 0 1 5 0.24838147 Ra i n 2 0 1 1 - 1 2 SW S t a n d a r d S -1 4 6 -7 7 No t e : V a l u e s s h o u l d b e g r e a t e r t h a n a l p h a ( 0 . 0 5 ) 20 1 2 - 1 3 No n e Va r S 28 3 5 34 5 6 Bo x P l o t 20 1 3 - 1 4 GW S t a n d a r d Tr e n d De c r e a s i n g De c r e a s i n g No n e p- v a l u e 0. 0 0 3 2 3 3 4 8 0. 0 9 8 0 3 1 7 1 St a n d a r d T y p e No n e Al p h a 0. 0 5 Me a n % D i f f e r e n c e ( r o b u s t R O S ) -2 . 0 0 0 5 6 5 9 3 1 Ev e n t T y p e Ye a r Si t e Mi x R a i n / S n o w 2 0 0 9 - 1 0 D S T - M C 4 Sn o w m e l t 2 0 1 0 - 1 1 Ra i n 2 0 1 1 - 1 2 20 1 2 - 1 3 20 1 3 - 1 4 t T e s t ( I n d e p e n d e n t ) Da t a Lo g D a t a Rk D a t a Me a n ( r o b u s t R O S ) G r o u p 1 0. 0 7 8 6 2 0 6 9 0. 8 0 7 4 3 9 7 3 31 . 4 8 2 7 5 8 6 2 G r o u p 2 0. 0 8 0 1 9 3 5 4 8 0. 7 9 3 8 0 3 2 7 1 29 . 5 8 0 6 4 5 1 6 De l t a 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 St d ( r o b u s t R O S ) G r o u p 1 0. 0 5 6 6 9 2 4 1 0. 2 7 3 6 9 1 3 6 17 . 6 0 3 0 0 4 3 9 G r o u p 2 0. 0 7 5 9 1 5 9 2 7 0. 2 9 0 3 9 1 7 9 5 17 . 5 6 0 8 9 2 5 2 de g r e e s o f f r e e d o m 55 . 3 5 3 1 8 2 7 6 57 . 9 9 5 7 0 1 2 9 57 . 7 1 5 1 7 0 4 8 Ef f e c t S i z e ( d ) 0. 0 0 1 5 7 2 8 6 -0 . 0 1 3 6 3 6 4 6 -1 . 9 0 2 1 1 3 4 6 t S t a t i s t i c -0 . 0 9 1 3 0 6 6 2 0. 1 8 7 2 5 4 0 4 0. 4 1 8 7 5 1 1 3 t C r i t i c a l -1 . 6 7 3 0 3 3 9 7 1. 6 7 2 0 2 8 8 9 1. 6 7 2 0 2 8 8 9 p- v a l u e ( 2 - s i d e d ) 0. 9 2 7 5 8 6 8 3 0. 8 5 2 1 3 8 2 5 0. 6 7 6 9 9 9 7 9 Po w e r 0. 0 5 9 7 2 3 0 2 0. 0 7 1 5 5 6 5 4 0. 1 0 7 6 1 0 6 3 Po w e r A n a l y s i s Be t a 0. 2 0. 2 0. 2 Ad d i t i o n a l n ( e a c h G r o u p ) >3 0 0 >3 0 0 >3 0 0 Su m m a r y S t a t i s t i c s Tu r b i d i t y n % d e c t mi n ma x me a n me d i a n ST D D E V CV Gr o u p 1 DS T - M C 3 29 10 0 % 0. 0 2 2 0. 2 5 5 0. 0 7 9 0. 0 6 1 0. 0 5 7 0. 7 2 1 Gr o u p 2 DS T - M C 4 31 10 0 % 0. 0 2 0 0 0. 4 2 0 0. 0 8 0 0. 0 5 2 0. 0 7 6 0. 9 4 7 DS T - M C 4 T r i b u t a r y DS T - M C 3 T r i b u t a r y 0 0. 0 5 0. 1 0. 1 5 0. 2 0. 2 5 0. 3 0. 3 5 0. 4 0. 4 5 8/ 1 0 / 1 0 2 / 2 6 / 1 1 9 / 1 4 / 1 1 4 / 1 / 1 2 1 0 / 1 8 / 1 2 5 / 6 / 1 3 1 1 / 2 2 / 1 3 6 / 10 / 1 4 1 2 / 2 7 / 1 4 T o t a l P h o s p h o r u s ( m g / L ) Da t e Ti m e S e r i e s P l o t DS T - M C 3 T r i b u t a r y DS T - M C 4 T r i b u t a r y Op e n S y m b o l = L e f t - C e n s o r e d -2 . 5 -2 . 0 -1 . 5 -1 . 0 -0 . 5 0. 0 0. 5 1. 0 1. 5 2. 0 2. 5 0. 0 1 0. 1 1 N o r m a l Q u a n t i l e To t a l P h o s p h o r u s ( m g / L ) Pa r a l l e l P r o b a b i l i t y P l o t DS T - M C 3 T r i b u t a r y DS T - M C 4 T r i b u t a r y 0 0. 2 0. 4 0. 6 0. 8 1 1. 2 1. 4 1. 6 1. 8 DS T - M C 3 T r i b u t a r y D S T - M C 4 T r i b u t a r y L o g 1 0 ( T o t a l P h o s p h o r u s ( m g / L ) x 1 0 0 ) Box Plot 16 St a t i s t i c a l C o m p a r i s o n Ti m e S e r i e s - M a n n - K e n d a l l ( M K ) T r e n d A n a l y s e s Sh a p i r o - W i l k ( S W ) a n d L i l l i e f o r s ( L ) N o r m a l i t y T e s t s Ev e n t T y p e Ye a r Si t e Gr o u p 2 v s G r o u p 1 DS T - M C 5 T r i b u t a r y DS T - M C 6 T r i b u t a r y DS T - M C 5 T r i b u t a r y DST-MC6 Tributary Mi x R a i n / S n o w 2 0 0 9 - 1 0 D S T - M C 5 An a l y t e Co u n t ( n ) 31 25 p- v a l u e ( S W ) 0. 0 0 7 8 8 5 1 0 0.00840169 Sn o w m e l t 2 0 1 0 - 1 1 To t a l P h o s p h o r u s Co u n t ( n o n d e t e c t s ) 0 0 p- v a l u e ( L ) 0. 0 3 5 8 2 3 8 5 0.51961138 Ra i n 2 0 1 1 - 1 2 SW S t a n d a r d S -7 4 -8 3 No t e : V a l u e s s h o u l d b e g r e a t e r t h a n a l p h a ( 0 . 0 5 ) 20 1 2 - 1 3 No n e Va r S 34 5 7 18 2 2 Bo x P l o t 20 1 3 - 1 4 GW S t a n d a r d Tr e n d De c r e a s i n g De c r e a s i n g No n e p- v a l u e 0. 1 0 7 1 8 5 5 5 0. 0 2 7 3 5 1 3 5 St a n d a r d T y p e No n e Al p h a 0. 0 5 Me a n % D i f f e r e n c e ( r o b u s t R O S ) 1. 2 6 2 3 5 7 4 1 4 Ev e n t T y p e Ye a r Si t e Mi x R a i n / S n o w 2 0 0 9 - 1 0 D S T - M C 6 Sn o w m e l t 2 0 1 0 - 1 1 Ra i n 2 0 1 1 - 1 2 20 1 2 - 1 3 20 1 3 - 1 4 t T e s t ( I n d e p e n d e n t ) Da t a Lo g D a t a Rk D a t a Me a n ( r o b u s t R O S ) G r o u p 1 0. 0 8 7 6 6 6 6 7 0. 7 9 1 9 8 2 1 5 30 . 0 9 6 7 7 4 1 9 G r o u p 2 0. 0 8 6 5 6 0. 7 3 0 1 0 8 2 3 3 26 . 5 2 De l t a 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 St d ( r o b u s t R O S ) G r o u p 1 0. 1 1 6 4 0 6 2 8 0. 3 1 4 9 3 5 9 9 15 . 8 6 7 9 0 2 2 7 G r o u p 2 0. 1 5 5 9 2 2 0 1 0. 3 4 7 9 1 3 3 0 2 16 . 9 4 2 5 9 9 1 7 de g r e e s o f f r e e d o m 43 . 4 0 8 1 6 8 7 5 49 . 0 6 0 5 3 1 8 0 49 . 9 6 3 0 3 8 7 1 Ef f e c t S i z e ( d ) -0 . 0 0 1 1 0 6 6 7 -0 . 0 6 1 8 7 3 9 2 -3 . 5 7 6 7 7 4 1 9 t S t a t i s t i c 0. 0 2 9 4 7 6 2 6 0. 6 8 9 9 9 4 7 1 0. 8 0 7 8 2 1 6 1 t C r i t i c a l 1. 6 8 1 0 7 0 7 0 1. 6 7 6 5 5 0 8 9 1. 6 7 6 5 5 0 8 9 p- v a l u e ( 2 - s i d e d ) 0. 9 7 6 6 2 4 3 8 0. 4 9 3 5 2 0 2 6 0. 4 2 3 1 7 8 7 0 Po w e r 0. 0 5 2 9 5 1 3 4 0. 1 6 4 3 5 3 4 5 0. 1 9 4 6 1 5 2 4 Po w e r A n a l y s i s Be t a 0. 2 0. 2 0. 2 Ad d i t i o n a l n ( e a c h G r o u p ) >3 0 0 14 2 97 Su m m a r y S t a t i s t i c s Tu r b i d i t y n % d e c t mi n ma x me a n me d i a n ST D D E V CV Gr o u p 1 DS T - M C 5 31 10 0 % 0. 0 2 5 0. 6 6 5 0. 0 8 8 0. 0 5 4 0. 1 1 6 1. 3 2 8 Gr o u p 2 DS T - M C 6 25 10 0 % 0. 0 1 7 0 0. 8 2 0 0. 0 8 7 0. 0 5 0 0. 1 5 6 1. 8 0 1 DS T - M C 6 T r i b u t a r y DS T - M C 5 T r i b u t a r y 0 0. 1 0. 2 0. 3 0. 4 0. 5 0. 6 0. 7 0. 8 0. 9 8/ 1 0 / 1 0 2 / 2 6 / 1 1 9 / 1 4 / 1 1 4 / 1 / 1 2 1 0 / 1 8 / 1 2 5 / 6 / 1 3 1 1 / 2 2 / 1 3 6 / 10 / 1 4 1 2 / 2 7 / 1 4 T o t a l P h o s p h o r u s ( m g / L ) Da t e Ti m e S e r i e s P l o t DS T - M C 5 T r i b u t a r y DS T - M C 6 T r i b u t a r y Op e n S y m b o l = L e f t - C e n s o r e d -2 . 5 -2 . 0 -1 . 5 -1 . 0 -0 . 5 0. 0 0. 5 1. 0 1. 5 2. 0 2. 5 0. 0 1 0. 1 1 N o r m a l Q u a n t i l e To t a l P h o s p h o r u s ( m g / L ) Pa r a l l e l P r o b a b i l i t y P l o t DS T - M C 5 T r i b u t a r y DS T - M C 6 T r i b u t a r y 0 0. 5 1 1. 5 2 2. 5 DS T - M C 5 T r i b u t a r y D S T - M C 6 T r i b u t a r y L o g 1 0 ( T o t a l P h o s p h o r u s ( m g / L ) x 1 0 0 ) Box Plot 17 St a t i s t i c a l C o m p a r i s o n Ti m e S e r i e s - M a n n - K e n d a l l ( M K ) T r e n d A n a l y s e s Sh a p i r o - W i l k ( S W ) a n d L i l l i e f o r s ( L ) N o r m a l i t y T e s t s Ev e n t T y p e Ye a r Si t e Gr o u p 2 v s G r o u p 1 DS C - M C 4 C o m m u n i t y DS C - M C 5 C o m m u n i t y DS C - M C 4 C o m m u n i t y DSC-MC5 Community Mi x R a i n / S n o w 2 0 0 9 - 1 0 D S C - M C 4 An a l y t e Co u n t ( n ) 8 8 p- v a l u e ( S W ) 0. 2 8 3 6 0 0 6 0 0.06129100 Sn o w m e l t 2 0 1 0 - 1 1 Di s s o l v e d P h o s p h o r u s Co u n t ( n o n d e t e c t s ) 0 2 p- v a l u e ( L ) 0. 3 6 6 3 1 5 1 4 0.17407140 Ra i n 2 0 1 1 - 1 2 SW S t a n d a r d S 15 2 No t e : V a l u e s s h o u l d b e g r e a t e r t h a n a l p h a ( 0 . 0 5 ) 20 1 2 - 1 3 No n e Va r S 64 63 Bo x P l o t 20 1 3 - 1 4 GW S t a n d a r d Tr e n d In c r e a s i n g In c r e a s i n g No n e p- v a l u e 0. 0 4 0 4 5 2 3 8 0. 4 5 0 0 0 2 0 5 St a n d a r d T y p e No n e Al p h a 0. 0 5 Me a n % D i f f e r e n c e ( r o b u s t R O S ) 84 . 6 4 5 6 6 9 2 9 Ev e n t T y p e Ye a r Si t e Mi x R a i n / S n o w 2 0 0 9 - 1 0 D S C - M C 5 Sn o w m e l t 2 0 1 0 - 1 1 Ra i n 2 0 1 1 - 1 2 20 1 2 - 1 3 20 1 3 - 1 4 t T e s t ( I n d e p e n d e n t ) Da t a Lo g D a t a Rk D a t a Me a n ( r o b u s t R O S ) G r o u p 1 0. 0 7 4 0 8 3 3 3 1. 7 3 4 3 2 2 5 3 12 . 1 2 5 0 0 0 0 0 G r o u p 2 0. 0 1 5 3 6 0 8 1 6 1. 1 7 4 6 2 9 4 6 7 4. 8 7 5 De l t a 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 St d ( r o b u s t R O S ) G r o u p 1 0. 0 6 5 7 6 6 2 4 0. 3 5 6 8 4 4 8 0 3. 0 3 2 5 6 1 3 9 G r o u p 2 0. 0 0 9 1 2 9 5 5 1 0. 1 9 0 3 4 9 5 5 7 3. 0 2 0 7 6 1 4 9 3 de g r e e s o f f r e e d o m 7. 2 6 9 6 8 6 7 1 10 . 6 8 5 2 0 7 4 6 13 . 9 9 9 7 8 7 2 1 Ef f e c t S i z e ( d ) -0 . 0 5 8 7 2 2 5 2 -0 . 5 5 9 6 9 3 0 7 -7 . 2 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 t S t a t i s t i c 2. 5 0 1 5 0 8 1 2 3. 9 1 4 1 8 6 7 5 4. 7 9 0 7 4 8 0 7 t C r i t i c a l 1. 8 9 4 5 7 8 6 1 1. 8 1 2 4 6 1 1 2 1. 7 7 0 9 3 3 4 0 p- v a l u e ( 2 - s i d e d ) 0. 0 4 6 4 3 3 4 0 0. 0 0 3 5 4 2 1 3 0. 0 0 0 4 4 0 4 2 Po w e r 0. 7 1 8 4 7 1 2 1 0. 9 6 9 0 5 1 2 8 0. 9 9 5 0 7 1 9 8 Po w e r A n a l y s i s Be t a NA NA NA Ad d i t i o n a l n ( e a c h G r o u p ) NA NA NA Su m m a r y S t a t i s t i c s Tu r b i d i t y n % d e c t mi n ma x me a n me d i a n ST D D E V CV Gr o u p 1 DS C - M C 4 8 10 0 % 0. 0 1 9 0. 1 8 0. 0 7 4 0. 0 5 0 0. 0 6 6 0. 8 8 8 Gr o u p 2 DS C - M C 5 8 75 % 0. 0 1 0 0 0. 0 3 0 0. 0 1 5 0. 0 1 4 0. 0 0 9 0. 5 9 4 DS C - M C 5 C o m m u n i t y DS C - M C 4 C o m m u n i t y 0 0. 0 2 0. 0 4 0. 0 6 0. 0 8 0. 1 0. 1 2 0. 1 4 0. 1 6 0. 1 8 0. 2 1/ 1 1 / 1 4 3 / 2 / 1 4 4 / 2 1 / 1 4 6 / 1 0 / 1 4 7 / 3 0 / 1 4 9 / 1 8 / 1 4 D i s s o l v e d P h o s p h o r u s ( m g / L ) Da t e Ti m e S e r i e s P l o t DS C - M C 4 C o m m u n i t y DS C - M C 5 C o m m u n i t y Op e n S y m b o l = L e f t - C e n s o r e d -2 . 0 -1 . 5 -1 . 0 -0 . 5 0. 0 0. 5 1. 0 1. 5 2. 0 0. 0 1 0. 1 1 N o r m a l Q u a n t i l e Di s s o l v e d P h o s p h o r u s ( m g / L ) Pa r a l l e l P r o b a b i l i t y P l o t DS C - M C 4 C o m m u n i t y DS C - M C 5 C o m m u n i t y 0 0. 5 1 1. 5 2 2. 5 DS C - M C 4 C o m m u n i t y D S C - M C 5 C o m m u n i t y L o g 1 0 ( D i s s o l v e d P h o s p h o r u s ( m g / L ) x 1 0 0 0 ) Box Plot 18 St a t i s t i c a l C o m p a r i s o n Ti m e S e r i e s - M a n n - K e n d a l l ( M K ) T r e n d A n a l y s e s Sh a p i r o - W i l k ( S W ) a n d L i l l i e f o r s ( L ) N o r m a l i t y T e s t s Ev e n t T y p e Ye a r Si t e Gr o u p 2 v s G r o u p 1 DS T - M C 1 T r i b u t a r y DS T - M C 2 T r i b u t a r y DS T - M C 1 T r i b u t a r y DST-MC2 Tributary Mi x R a i n / S n o w 2 0 0 9 - 1 0 D S T - M C 1 An a l y t e Co u n t ( n ) 31 31 p- v a l u e ( S W ) 0. 0 0 0 9 6 2 5 6 0.28170827 Sn o w m e l t 2 0 1 0 - 1 1 Di s s o l v e d P h o s p h o r u s Co u n t ( n o n d e t e c t s ) 1 0 p- v a l u e ( L ) 0. 0 0 1 3 4 1 0 2 0.43743922 Ra i n 2 0 1 1 - 1 2 SW S t a n d a r d S 4 -3 7 No t e : V a l u e s s h o u l d b e g r e a t e r t h a n a l p h a ( 0 . 0 5 ) 20 1 2 - 1 3 No n e Va r S 34 2 7 34 4 6 Bo x P l o t 20 1 3 - 1 4 GW S t a n d a r d Tr e n d In c r e a s i n g No n e No n e p- v a l u e 0. 4 7 9 5 6 5 5 4 0. 2 6 9 8 6 1 9 2 St a n d a r d T y p e No n e Al p h a 0. 0 5 Me a n % D i f f e r e n c e ( r o b u s t R O S ) 1. 1 9 0 4 7 6 1 9 Ev e n t T y p e Ye a r Si t e Mi x R a i n / S n o w 2 0 0 9 - 1 0 D S T - M C 2 Sn o w m e l t 2 0 1 0 - 1 1 Ra i n 2 0 1 1 - 1 2 20 1 2 - 1 3 20 1 3 - 1 4 t T e s t ( I n d e p e n d e n t ) Da t a Lo g D a t a Rk D a t a Me a n ( r o b u s t R O S ) G r o u p 1 0. 0 3 9 5 4 7 2 6 0. 5 5 6 0 2 1 4 4 32 . 6 7 7 4 1 9 3 5 G r o u p 2 0. 0 3 4 8 0 6 4 5 2 0. 5 1 2 3 4 9 9 8 3 30 . 3 2 2 5 8 0 6 5 De l t a 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 St d ( r o b u s t R O S ) G r o u p 1 0. 0 2 6 6 9 5 8 6 0. 2 1 7 3 7 9 7 4 18 . 8 8 6 7 4 5 0 8 G r o u p 2 0. 0 1 3 9 6 5 2 4 1 0. 1 5 8 5 6 0 3 3 5 17 . 3 0 9 2 2 1 2 4 de g r e e s o f f r e e d o m 45 . 2 7 5 5 4 4 4 4 54 . 8 7 9 9 8 3 7 7 59 . 5 4 9 2 6 6 7 1 Ef f e c t S i z e ( d ) -0 . 0 0 4 7 4 0 8 1 -0 . 0 4 3 6 7 1 4 6 -2 . 3 5 4 8 3 8 7 1 t S t a t i s t i c 0. 8 7 6 1 1 8 3 8 0. 9 0 3 6 9 7 9 0 0. 5 1 1 7 8 1 7 1 t C r i t i c a l 1. 6 7 9 4 2 7 3 9 1. 6 7 3 5 6 4 9 1 1. 6 7 1 0 9 3 0 3 p- v a l u e ( 2 - s i d e d ) 0. 3 8 5 7 2 3 8 1 0. 3 7 0 2 4 4 9 3 0. 6 1 0 7 4 6 9 3 Po w e r 0. 2 1 3 0 0 9 5 3 0. 2 2 2 3 6 6 8 3 0. 1 2 5 4 9 9 8 8 Po w e r A n a l y s i s Be t a 0. 2 0. 2 0. 2 Ad d i t i o n a l n ( e a c h G r o u p ) 89 82 >3 0 0 Su m m a r y S t a t i s t i c s Tu r b i d i t y n % d e c t mi n ma x me a n me d i a n ST D D E V CV Gr o u p 1 DS T - M C 1 31 97 % 0. 0 2 0 0. 1 5 3 0. 0 4 0 0. 0 3 3 0. 0 2 7 0. 6 7 5 Gr o u p 2 DS T - M C 2 31 10 0 % 0. 0 1 5 0 0. 0 7 2 0. 0 3 5 0. 0 3 2 0. 0 1 4 0. 4 0 1 DS T - M C 2 T r i b u t a r y DS T - M C 1 T r i b u t a r y 0 0. 0 2 0. 0 4 0. 0 6 0. 0 8 0. 1 0. 1 2 0. 1 4 0. 1 6 0. 1 8 8/ 1 0 / 1 0 2 / 2 6 / 1 1 9 / 1 4 / 1 1 4 / 1 / 1 2 1 0 / 1 8 / 1 2 5 / 6 / 1 3 1 1 / 2 2 / 1 3 6 / 10 / 1 4 1 2 / 2 7 / 1 4 D i s s o l v e d P h o s p h o r u s ( m g / L ) Da t e Ti m e S e r i e s P l o t DS T - M C 1 T r i b u t a r y DS T - M C 2 T r i b u t a r y Op e n S y m b o l = L e f t - C e n s o r e d -2 . 5 -2 . 0 -1 . 5 -1 . 0 -0 . 5 0. 0 0. 5 1. 0 1. 5 2. 0 2. 5 0. 0 1 0. 1 1 N o r m a l Q u a n t i l e Di s s o l v e d P h o s p h o r u s ( m g / L ) Pa r a l l e l P r o b a b i l i t y P l o t DS T - M C 1 T r i b u t a r y DS T - M C 2 T r i b u t a r y 0 0. 2 0. 4 0. 6 0. 8 1 1. 2 1. 4 DS T - M C 1 T r i b u t a r y D S T - M C 2 T r i b u t a r y L o g 1 0 ( D i s s o l v e d P h o s p h o r u s ( m g / L ) x 1 0 0 ) Box Plot 19 St a t i s t i c a l C o m p a r i s o n Ti m e S e r i e s - M a n n - K e n d a l l ( M K ) T r e n d A n a l y s e s Sh a p i r o - W i l k ( S W ) a n d L i l l i e f o r s ( L ) N o r m a l i t y T e s t s Ev e n t T y p e Ye a r Si t e Gr o u p 2 v s G r o u p 1 DS T - M C 3 T r i b u t a r y DS T - M C 4 T r i b u t a r y DS T - M C 3 T r i b u t a r y DST-MC4 Tributary Mi x R a i n / S n o w 2 0 0 9 - 1 0 D S T - M C 3 An a l y t e Co u n t ( n ) 29 31 p- v a l u e ( S W ) 0. 0 4 0 6 1 3 3 0 0.00185971 Sn o w m e l t 2 0 1 0 - 1 1 Di s s o l v e d P h o s p h o r u s Co u n t ( n o n d e t e c t s ) 0 0 p- v a l u e ( L ) 0. 0 5 8 4 4 5 0 6 0.01664190 Ra i n 2 0 1 1 - 1 2 SW S t a n d a r d S -7 5 -4 No t e : V a l u e s s h o u l d b e g r e a t e r t h a n a l p h a ( 0 . 0 5 ) 20 1 2 - 1 3 No n e Va r S 28 3 7 34 4 0 Bo x P l o t 20 1 3 - 1 4 GW S t a n d a r d Tr e n d De c r e a s i n g De c r e a s i n g No n e p- v a l u e 0. 0 8 2 3 6 7 8 5 0. 4 7 9 6 0 3 1 7 St a n d a r d T y p e No n e Al p h a 0. 0 5 Me a n % D i f f e r e n c e ( r o b u s t R O S ) 7. 5 4 3 3 5 1 9 2 1 Ev e n t T y p e Ye a r Si t e Mi x R a i n / S n o w 2 0 0 9 - 1 0 D S T - M C 4 Sn o w m e l t 2 0 1 0 - 1 1 Ra i n 2 0 1 1 - 1 2 20 1 2 - 1 3 20 1 3 - 1 4 t T e s t ( I n d e p e n d e n t ) Da t a Lo g D a t a Rk D a t a Me a n ( r o b u s t R O S ) G r o u p 1 0. 0 4 7 2 7 5 8 6 1. 5 9 2 1 4 7 6 0 35 . 2 4 1 3 7 9 3 1 G r o u p 2 0. 0 4 3 7 0 9 6 7 7 1. 4 8 9 4 4 3 6 0 7 26 . 0 6 4 5 1 6 1 3 De l t a 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 St d ( r o b u s t R O S ) G r o u p 1 0. 0 3 7 8 3 0 3 5 0. 2 4 8 0 5 4 3 7 15 . 3 6 2 0 7 1 0 4 G r o u p 2 0. 0 5 9 7 6 2 9 7 3 0. 3 0 7 4 7 8 6 3 3 18 . 3 4 5 1 8 1 9 de g r e e s o f f r e e d o m 51 . 1 4 9 3 5 9 1 3 56 . 8 0 4 8 3 4 7 7 57 . 3 2 2 5 4 4 5 9 Ef f e c t S i z e ( d ) -0 . 0 0 3 5 6 6 1 8 -0 . 1 0 2 7 0 4 0 0 -9 . 1 7 6 8 6 3 1 8 t S t a t i s t i c 0. 2 7 7 9 9 5 6 3 1. 4 2 8 1 6 2 3 8 2. 1 0 5 6 4 8 7 3 t C r i t i c a l 1. 6 7 5 2 8 4 9 5 1. 6 7 2 5 2 2 3 0 1. 6 7 2 0 2 8 8 9 p- v a l u e ( 2 - s i d e d ) 0. 7 8 2 1 6 2 0 6 0. 1 5 8 8 9 9 3 1 0. 0 3 9 7 3 1 8 4 Po w e r 0. 0 8 4 1 8 8 1 5 0. 4 0 3 9 2 2 6 0 0. 6 6 6 8 9 9 3 7 Po w e r A n a l y s i s Be t a 0. 2 0. 2 NA Ad d i t i o n a l n ( e a c h G r o u p ) >3 0 0 15 NA Su m m a r y S t a t i s t i c s Tu r b i d i t y n % d e c t mi n ma x me a n me d i a n ST D D E V CV Gr o u p 1 DS T - M C 3 29 10 0 % 0. 0 1 6 0. 2 0. 0 4 7 0. 0 3 5 0. 0 3 8 0. 8 0 0 Gr o u p 2 DS T - M C 4 31 10 0 % 0. 0 1 0 0 0. 3 4 0 0. 0 4 4 0. 0 2 4 0. 0 6 0 1. 3 6 7 DS T - M C 4 T r i b u t a r y DS T - M C 3 T r i b u t a r y 0 0. 0 5 0. 1 0. 1 5 0. 2 0. 2 5 0. 3 0. 3 5 0. 4 8/ 1 0 / 1 0 2 / 2 6 / 1 1 9 / 1 4 / 1 1 4 / 1 / 1 2 1 0 / 1 8 / 1 2 5 / 6 / 1 3 1 1 / 2 2 / 1 3 6 / 10 / 1 4 1 2 / 2 7 / 1 4 D i s s o l v e d P h o s p h o r u s ( m g / L ) Da t e Ti m e S e r i e s P l o t DS T - M C 3 T r i b u t a r y DS T - M C 4 T r i b u t a r y Op e n S y m b o l = L e f t - C e n s o r e d -2 . 5 -2 . 0 -1 . 5 -1 . 0 -0 . 5 0. 0 0. 5 1. 0 1. 5 2. 0 2. 5 0. 0 1 0. 1 1 N o r m a l Q u a n t i l e Di s s o l v e d P h o s p h o r u s ( m g / L ) Pa r a l l e l P r o b a b i l i t y P l o t DS T - M C 3 T r i b u t a r y DS T - M C 4 T r i b u t a r y 0 0. 5 1 1. 5 2 2. 5 3 DS T - M C 3 T r i b u t a r y D S T - M C 4 T r i b u t a r y L o g 1 0 ( D i s s o l v e d P h o s p h o r u s ( m g / L ) x 1 0 0 0 ) Box Plot 20 St a t i s t i c a l C o m p a r i s o n Ti m e S e r i e s - M a n n - K e n d a l l ( M K ) T r e n d A n a l y s e s Sh a p i r o - W i l k ( S W ) a n d L i l l i e f o r s ( L ) N o r m a l i t y T e s t s Ev e n t T y p e Ye a r Si t e Gr o u p 2 v s G r o u p 1 DS T - M C 5 T r i b u t a r y DS T - M C 6 T r i b u t a r y DS T - M C 5 T r i b u t a r y DST-MC6 Tributary Mi x R a i n / S n o w 2 0 0 9 - 1 0 D S T - M C 5 An a l y t e Co u n t ( n ) 31 25 p- v a l u e ( S W ) 0. 0 0 0 0 5 7 0 6 0.08147307 Sn o w m e l t 2 0 1 0 - 1 1 Di s s o l v e d P h o s p h o r u s Co u n t ( n o n d e t e c t s ) 0 0 p- v a l u e ( L ) 0. 0 0 1 1 7 9 0 2 0.04294948 Ra i n 2 0 1 1 - 1 2 SW S t a n d a r d S -8 -3 3 No t e : V a l u e s s h o u l d b e g r e a t e r t h a n a l p h a ( 0 . 0 5 ) 20 1 2 - 1 3 No n e Va r S 34 5 6 18 2 4 Bo x P l o t 20 1 3 - 1 4 GW S t a n d a r d Tr e n d De c r e a s i n g De c r e a s i n g No n e p- v a l u e 0. 4 5 2 6 0 8 9 9 0. 2 2 6 8 2 7 0 2 St a n d a r d T y p e No n e Al p h a 0. 0 5 Me a n % D i f f e r e n c e ( r o b u s t R O S ) 42 . 7 2 9 3 6 2 5 9 Ev e n t T y p e Ye a r Si t e Mi x R a i n / S n o w 2 0 0 9 - 1 0 D S T - M C 6 Sn o w m e l t 2 0 1 0 - 1 1 Ra i n 2 0 1 1 - 1 2 20 1 2 - 1 3 20 1 3 - 1 4 t T e s t ( I n d e p e n d e n t ) Da t a Lo g D a t a Rk D a t a Me a n ( r o b u s t R O S ) G r o u p 1 0. 0 6 1 7 4 1 9 4 0. 5 9 9 3 4 1 8 3 31 . 3 8 7 0 9 6 7 7 G r o u p 2 0. 0 3 5 3 6 0. 4 7 9 6 8 5 8 6 2 24 . 9 2 De l t a 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 St d ( r o b u s t R O S ) G r o u p 1 0. 1 0 6 2 4 8 6 5 0. 3 2 2 7 5 2 5 0 15 . 9 7 1 1 7 7 0 0 G r o u p 2 0. 0 2 4 1 0 8 9 2 0. 2 3 3 6 7 4 4 6 16 . 2 9 6 5 2 3 1 5 de g r e e s o f f r e e d o m 33 . 7 8 0 8 9 3 7 1 53 . 4 4 7 7 5 2 8 1 51 . 0 6 7 6 4 7 1 0 Ef f e c t S i z e ( d ) -0 . 0 2 6 3 8 1 9 4 -0 . 1 1 9 6 5 5 9 7 -6 . 4 6 7 0 9 6 7 7 t S t a t i s t i c 1. 3 4 0 3 7 0 3 1 1. 6 0 6 9 6 0 8 5 1. 4 8 9 4 8 9 6 7 t C r i t i c a l 1. 6 9 2 3 6 0 3 1 1. 6 7 4 1 1 6 2 4 1. 6 7 5 2 8 4 9 5 p- v a l u e ( 2 - s i d e d ) 0. 1 8 9 5 6 4 4 4 0. 1 1 4 1 1 8 9 7 0. 1 4 2 6 3 9 7 2 Po w e r 0. 3 6 3 5 4 1 8 4 0. 4 7 3 3 5 5 3 5 0. 4 2 6 6 7 1 1 5 Po w e r A n a l y s i s Be t a 0. 2 0. 2 0. 2 Ad d i t i o n a l n ( e a c h G r o u p ) 22 6 10 Su m m a r y S t a t i s t i c s Tu r b i d i t y n % d e c t mi n ma x me a n me d i a n ST D D E V CV Gr o u p 1 DS T - M C 5 31 10 0 % 0. 0 1 4 0. 6 0 3 0. 0 6 2 0. 0 3 3 0. 1 0 6 1. 7 2 1 Gr o u p 2 DS T - M C 6 25 10 0 % 0. 0 1 3 0 0. 1 1 2 0. 0 3 5 0. 0 2 7 0. 0 2 4 0. 6 8 2 DS T - M C 6 T r i b u t a r y DS T - M C 5 T r i b u t a r y 0 0. 1 0. 2 0. 3 0. 4 0. 5 0. 6 0. 7 8/ 1 0 / 1 0 2 / 2 6 / 1 1 9 / 1 4 / 1 1 4 / 1 / 1 2 1 0 / 1 8 / 1 2 5 / 6 / 1 3 1 1 / 2 2 / 1 3 6 / 10 / 1 4 1 2 / 2 7 / 1 4 D i s s o l v e d P h o s p h o r u s ( m g / L ) Da t e Ti m e S e r i e s P l o t DS T - M C 5 T r i b u t a r y DS T - M C 6 T r i b u t a r y Op e n S y m b o l = L e f t - C e n s o r e d -2 . 5 -2 . 0 -1 . 5 -1 . 0 -0 . 5 0. 0 0. 5 1. 0 1. 5 2. 0 2. 5 0. 0 1 0. 1 1 N o r m a l Q u a n t i l e Di s s o l v e d P h o s p h o r u s ( m g / L ) Pa r a l l e l P r o b a b i l i t y P l o t DS T - M C 5 T r i b u t a r y DS T - M C 6 T r i b u t a r y 0 0. 2 0. 4 0. 6 0. 8 1 1. 2 1. 4 1. 6 1. 8 2 DS T - M C 5 T r i b u t a r y D S T - M C 6 T r i b u t a r y L o g 1 0 ( D i s s o l v e d P h o s p h o r u s ( m g / L ) x 1 0 0 ) Box Plot Appendix B RAM Assessment Results Table and Original Field Data Sheets RAM Interval Reach No. Observation Date Discharge at Tahoe City Dam Percent < 2 mm Cobble Percent Embedded D50 (mm) 1 7/7/2014 222 5 56 107 2 7/7/2014 222 15 53 50 3 7/7/2014 222 11 44 101 4 7/7/2014 222 5 43 99 5 7/7/2014 222 16 22 126 11 44 97 1 7/10/2014 211 16 50 55 2 7/10/2014 211 22 50 58 3 7/10/2014 211 13 44 56 4 7/10/2014 211 9 16 42 5 7/10/2014 211 5 25 54 6 7/10/2014 211 11 45 56 7 7/10/2014 211 5 35 49 8 7/10/2014 211 4 17 42 9 7/10/2014 211 7 12 38 10 7/10/2014 211 9 39 74 11 7/10/2014 211 11 44 82 10 34 55 1 7/9/2014 218 2 29 23 2 7/9/2014 218 4 47 19 3 7/9/2014 218 7 37 19 4 7/9/2014 218 0 44 21 5 7/9/2014 218 11 48 16 6 7/9/2014 218 5 34 25 7 7/9/2014 218 7 32 30 8 7/9/2014 218 11 32 21 9 7/9/2014 218 5 44 24 10 7/9/2014 218 5 51 29 11 7/9/2014 218 13 48 30 6 41 23 1 8/22/2014 83 7 24 45 2 8/22/2014 83 13 33 48 3 8/22/2014 83 13 19 61 4 8/22/2014 83 5 39 35 5 8/22/2014 83 13 30 26 6 8/22/2014 83 49 43 11 7 8/22/2014 83 31 23 7 8 8/22/2014 83 25 118 15 9 8/22/2014 83 13 63 14 10 8/22/2014 83 53 0 4 11 8/22/2014 83 36 0 4 23 36 24 1 7/8/2014 216 7 49 44 2 7/8/2014 216 11 44 33 3 7/8/2014 216 5 41 57 4 7/8/2014 216 5 38 68 5 7/8/2014 216 18 49 50 6 7/8/2014 216 13 54 47 7 7/8/2014 216 27 42 31 8 7/8/2014 216 13 37 29 9 7/8/2014 216 24 60 12 10 7/8/2014 216 24 25 19 11 7/8/2014 216 22 18 22 15 41 37 Martis Creek Appendix B East Martis Creek AVERAGE West Martis Creek AVERAGE AVERAGE RAM Data Assessment Results Squaw Creek AVERAGE Bear Creek AVERAGE Appendix C Bioassessment Field Data Sheets Appendix D Event Tallies and Analytical Data Community Level Event Tallies and Analytical Data Sa m p l e D a t e s E v e n t T y p e Br i c k e l l t o w n (D S C - T T 1 ) Tr o u t C r e e k (D S C - T C 1 ) 2/ 5 / 2 0 1 0 S WQ ( P 1 ) 2/ 2 4 / 2 0 1 0 M WQ ( P 1 ) W Q ( P 1 ) 2/ 2 6 / 2 0 1 0 M WQ ( P 1 ) W Q ( P 1 ) 3/ 1 2 / 2 0 1 0 M WQ ( P 1 ) 3/ 2 9 / 2 0 1 0 R WQ ( P 1 ) W Q ( P 1 ) 4/ 2 2 / 2 0 1 0 S WQ ( P 1 ) W Q ( P 1 ) 4/ 2 7 / 2 0 1 0 R WQ ( P 1 ) W Q ( P 1 ) 5/ 1 0 / 2 0 1 0 M WQ ( P 1 ) 5/ 2 5 / 2 0 1 0 R WQ ( P 1 ) Sa m p l e D a t e s E v e n t T y p e Br i c k e l l t o w n (D S C - T T 1 ) Tr o u t C r e e k (D S C - T C 1 ) Ai r p o r t (D S C - M C 1 ) 10 / 4 / 2 0 1 0 R WQ ( P 1 ) W Q ( P 1 ) 10 / 2 4 / 2 0 1 0 R WQ ( P 1 ) W Q ( P 1 ) W Q ( P 1 ) 12 / 1 4 / 2 0 1 0 M WQ ( P 1 ) W Q ( P 1 ) W Q ( P 1 ) 12 / 1 8 / 2 0 1 0 M WQ ( P 1 ) 12 / 2 8 / 2 0 1 0 M WQ ( P 1 ) WY 2 0 1 0 T o w n o f T r u c k e e Co m m u n i t y L e v e l D i s c r e t e Wa t e r Q u a l i t y M o n i t o r i n g E v e n t T a l l y WY 2 0 1 1 T o w n o f T r u c k e e Co m m u n i t y L e v e l D i s c r e t e Wa t e r Q u a l i t y M o n i t o r i n g E v e n t T a l l y Si t e s D S C - T T 1 a n d D S C - T C 1 w e r e s e t u p t o s a m p l e t h i s r a i n e v e n t . S a m p l e s w e r e su c c e s s f u l l y c o l l e c t e d a t b o t h s i t e s . Si t e s D S C - T T 1 a n d D S C - T C 1 w e r e s e t u p t o s a m p l e t h i s s n o w m e l t e v e n t . S a m p l e s we r e s u c c e s s f u l l y c o l l e c t e d a t b o t h s i t e s . Si t e s D S C - T T 1 a n d D S C - T C 1 w e r e s e t u p t o s a m p l e t h i s s n o w m e l t e v e n t . S a m p l e s we r e s u c c e s s f u l l y c o l l e c t e d a t b o t h s i t e s . Si t e s D S C - T T 1 a n d D S C - T C 1 w e r e s e t u p t o s a m p l e t h i s m i x e d e v e n t . S a m p l e s w e r e su c c e s s f u l l y c o l l e c t e d a t S i t e D S C - T T 1 , b u t i n s u f f i c i e n t f l o w o c c u r r e d a t S i t e D S C - TC 1 . Si t e s D S C - T T 1 a n d D S C - T C 1 w e r e s e t u p t o s a m p l e t h i s m i x e d e v e n t . S a m p l e s w e r e su c c e s s f u l l y c o l l e c t e d a t S i t e D S C - T C 1 , b u t i n s u f f i c i e n t f l o w o c c u r r e d a t S i t e D S C - TT 1 . Co m m e n t s Si t e s D S C - T T 1 a n d D S C - M C 1 w e r e s e t u p t o s a m p l e t h i s m i x e d ev e n t . S a m p l e s w e r e s u c c e s s f u l l y c o l l e c t e d a t b o t h s i t e s . S i t e D S C - TT 1 w a s n o t s e t u p . T h e s a m p l e h o u s i n g a n d D I s u m p w e r e f u l l o f se d i m e n t . Si t e s D S C - T T 1 , D S C - T C 1 a n d D S C - M C 1 w e r e s e t u p t o s a m p l e th i s m i x e d e v e n t . S a m p l e s w e r e s u c c e s s f u l l y c o l l e c t e d a t t h e t h r e e si t e s . Si t e s D S C - T T 1 , D S C - T C 1 a n d D S C - M C 1 w e r e s e t u p t o s a m p l e th i s m i x e d e v e n t . S a m p l e s w e r e s u c c e s s f u l l y c o l l e c t e d a t t h t h r e e si t e s . Si t e D S C - T C 1 w a s s e t u p t o s a m p l e t h i s m i x e d e v e n t . A s a m p l e wa s s u c c e s s f u l l y c o l l e c t e d . S i t e D S C - T T 1 a n d S i t e D S C - M C 1 w e r e no t s e t u p d u e t o s i t e s a f e t y c o n c e r n s . S n o w a n d i c e o n t h e ro a d w a y a n d h e a v y t r a f f i c a t t h e s i t e i m p e d e d s t a t i o n s e t u p . Co m m e n t s Si t e s D S C - T T 1 a n d D S C - T C 1 w e r e s e t u p t o s a m p l e t h i s s n o w m e l t e v e n t . A s a m p l e wa s s u c c e s s f u l l y o b t a i n e d f r o m S i t e D S C - T T 1 ; h o w e v e r , i n s u f f i c i e n t f l o w o c c u r r e d a t Si t e D S C - T C 1 . F l o w h a s b e e n o b s e r v e d i n d r a i n a g e s t r u c t u r e s c o n n e c t e d t o S i t e DS C - T C 1 , b u t i t d o e s n o t m a k e i t t o t h e o u t f a l l . Si t e s D S C - T T 1 a n d D S C - T C 1 w e r e s e t u p t o s a m p l e t h i s m i x e d e v e n t . S a m p l e s w e r e su c c e s s f u l l y c o l l e c t e d a t b o t h s i t e s . Si t e s D S C - T T 1 a n d D S C - T C 1 w e r e s e t u p t o s a m p l e t h i s m i x e d e v e n t . S a m p l e s w e r e su c c e s s f u l l y c o l l e c t e d a t b o t h s i t e s . Si t e s D S C - T T 1 a n d D S C - T C 1 w e r e s e t u p t o s a m p l e t h i s m i x e d e v e n t . S a m p l e s w e r e su c c e s s f u l l y c o l l e c t e d a t S i t e D S C - T T 1 , b u t n o f l o w o c c u r r e d a t S i t e D S C - T C 1 . I t ap p e a r e d t h a t a l l o f t h e f l o w w a s i n f i l t r a t i n g i n t h e e a r t h e n s w a l e o n t h e n o r t h s i d e o f Do n n e r P a s s R o a d . Si t e s D S C - T T 1 , D S C - T C 1 a n d D S C - M C 1 w e r e s e t u p t o s a m p l e th i s m i x e d e v e n t . A s a m p l e w a s s u c c e s s f u l l y c o l l e c t e d a t D S C - T C 1 . Du e t o c o l d t e m p e r a t u r e s , t h i s s t o r m p r o d u c e d m o s t l y s n o w f a l l . Fl o w d i d n o t r e a c h t h e r e q u i r e d l e v e l f o r a s a m p l e t o b e c o l l e c t e d a t Si t e s D S C - T T 1 a n d D S C - M C 1 . 1/ 1 7 / 2 0 1 1 S WQ ( P 1 ) 2/ 2 2 / 2 0 1 1 S WQ ( P 1 ) 3/ 2 / 2 0 1 1 M WQ ( P 1 ) W Q ( P 1 ) 3/ 6 / 2 0 1 1 M WQ ( P 1 ) W Q ( P 1 ) 3/ 1 4 / 2 0 1 1 S WQ ( P 1 ) W Q ( P 1 ) 3/ 2 8 / 2 0 1 1 S WQ ( P 1 ) W Q ( P 1 ) 3/ 3 1 / 2 0 1 1 S TP H (E x t r a c t a b l e ) - - 4/ 1 1 / 2 0 1 1 S WQ ( P 1 ) 4/ 2 0 / 2 0 1 1 M WQ ( P 1 ) 5/ 2 5 / 2 0 1 1 R WQ ( P 1 ) W Q ( P 1 ) Sa m p l e D a t e s E v e n t T y p e Br i c k e l l t o w n (D S C - T T 1 ) Tr o u t C r e e k S E (D S C - T C 1 ) Ai r p o r t (D S C - M C 1 ) Br i d g e S t SW (D S C T T 2 ) Br i d g e S t SE (D S C TT 3 ) Br i d g e S t NW (D S C TT 4 ) Tr o u t Cr e e k NW (D S C TC 2 ) Do n n e r Cr e e k (D S C DC 1 ) We s t Ri v e r (D S C TT 5 ) Co m m e n t s 10 / 5 / 2 0 1 1 R WQ ( P 1 ) W Q ( P 1 ) Si t e s D S C - T T 1 a n d D S C - M C 1 w e r e s e t u p t o s a m p l e t h i s r a i n e v e n t . S a m p l e s w e r e s u c c e s s f u l l y co l l e c t e d a t b o t h s i t e s . S i t e D S C - T C 1 w a s n o t s e t u p . T r o u t C r e e k r e s t o r a t i o n p r o j e c t o b s t r u c t i n g si t e . P r e c i p i t a t i o n a n d T e m p f r o m t h e T r u c k e e T a h o e N W S g a u g e a n d A n t e c e d e n t D r y f r o m t h e Tr u c k e e # 2 S n o t e l g a u g e . 1/ 2 0 / 2 0 1 2 M W Q ( P 1 ) W Q ( P 1 ) Si t e s D S C - T T 1 a n d D S C - T C 1 w e r e s e t u p t o s a m p l e t h i s m i x e v e n t . S a m p l e s w e r e s u c c e s s f u l l y co l l e c t e d a t b o t h s i t e s . S i t e D S C - M C 1 w a s n o t s e t u p d u e t o i c e i n t h e s a m p l i n g l o c a t i o n . 1/ 2 1 / 2 0 1 2 S WQ ( P 1 ) Si t e D S C - M C 1 w a s s e t u p t o s a m p l e t h i s s n o w m e l t e v e n t a n d a s a m p l e w a s s u c c e s s f u l l y c o l l e c t e d . Si t e s D S C - M C 1 a n d D S C - T T 1 w e r e n o t s e t u p b e c a u s e s a m p l e s w e r e c o l l e c t e d o n t h e p r e v i o u s da y . Si t e s D S C - T T 1 , D S C - T C 1 a n d D S C - M C 1 w e r e s e t u p t o s a m p l e th i s s n o w m e l t e v e n t . A s a m p l e w a s s u c c e s s f u l l y c o l l e c t e d a t D S C - TT 1 . F l o w d i d n o t r e a c h t h e r e q u i r e d l e v e l f o r a s a m p l e t o b e co l l e c t e d a t S i t e s D S C - T C 1 a n d D S C - M C 1 . Si t e s D S C - T T 1 , D S C - T C 1 a n d D S C - M C 1 w e r e s e t u p t o s a m p l e th i s s n o w m e l t e v e n t . A s a m p l e w a s s u c c e s s f u l l y c o l l e c t e d a t D S C - TC 1 . F l o w d i d n o t r e a c h t h e r e q u i r e d l e v e l f o r a s a m p l e t o b e co l l e c t e d a t S i t e s D S C - T T 1 a n d D S C - M C 1 . Si t e s D S C - T T 1 , D S C - T C 1 a n d D S C - M C 1 w e r e s e t u p t o s a m p l e th i s m i x e v e n t . A s a m p l e w a s s u c c e s s f u l l y c o l l e c t e d a t D S C - T T 1 an d D S C - M C 1 . F l o w d i d n o t r e a c h t h e r e q u i r e d l e v e l f o r a s a m p l e to b e c o l l e c t e d a t S i t e D S C - T C 1 . Pr e c i p i t a t i o n f e l l a s a m i x t u r e o f r a i n a n d s n o w o n t o p o f s n o w . Si t e s D S C - T C 1 a n d D S C - M C 1 w e r e s e t u p t o s a m p l e t h i s m i x ev e n t . A s a m p l e w a s s u c c e s s f u l l y c o l l e c t e d a t D S C - T C 1 a n d D S C - MC 1 . D S C - T T 1 w a s n o t s e t u p d u e t o h i g h f l o w r a t e s o c c u r r i n g a t ti m e o f s e t u p . Si t e s D S C - T T 1 , D S C - T C 1 a n d D S C - M C 1 w e r e s e t u p t o s a m p l e th i s s n o w m e l t e v e n t . A s a m p l e w a s s u c c e s s f u l l y c o l l e c t e d a t D S C - TC 1 a n d D S C - T C 1 . D S C - M C 1 w a s n o t s e t u p b e c a u s e h i g h f l o w ra t e s w e r e o c c u r i n g . Si t e s D S C - T T 1 a n d D S C - M C 1 w e r e s e t u p t o s a m p l e t h i s s n o w m e l t ev e n t , a n d a s a m p l e w a s s u c c e s s f u l l y c o l l e c t e d a t b o t h s i t e s . D S C - TC 1 w a s n o t s e t u p b e c a u s e t h e s a m p l e q u o t a h a s b e e n r e a c h e d . A g r a b s a m p l e p u l l e d f r o m s i t e D S C - T T 1 d u r i n g s n o w m e l t co n d i t i o n s t o b e a n a l y z e d f o r e x t r a c t a b l e T P H ( t o t a l p e t r o l e u m hy d r o c a r b o n ) . N o s i t e s w e r e s e t u p t o s a m p l e t h i s e v e n t , j u s t t h e on e g r a b s a m p l e . A s n o w m e l t s a m p l e w a s c o l l e c t e d f r o m D S C - M C 1 . T h e o t h e r 2 si t e s w e r e n o t s e t u p t o s a m p l e t h i s e v e n t . E v e n t t y p e s a m p l e q u o t a re a c h e d . Ra i n t u r n e d t o s n o w i n t h e a f t e r n o o n . N o r o a d m a i n t e n a n c e ac t i v i t i e s o c c u r r e d . S u c c e s s f u l s s a m p l e s w e r e c o l l e c t e d a t D S C - TT 1 a n d D S C - M C 1 w h e n t h e s n o w m e l t e d i n t h e e a r l y e v e n i n g o f 5/ 2 5 / 2 0 1 1 . WY 2 0 1 2 T o w n o f T r u c k e e Co m m u n i t y L e v e l D i s c r e t e Wa t e r Q u a l i t y M o n i t o r i n g E v e n t T a l l y 1/ 2 6 / 2 0 1 2 S W Q ( P 1 ) W Q ( P 1 ) Si t e s D S C - M C 1 , D S C - T C 1 , a n d D S C - T T 1 w e r e s e t u p t o s a m p l e t h i s s n o w m e l t e v e n t . S a m p l e s we r e s u c c e s s f u l l y c o l l e c t e d a t s i t e s D S C - M C 1 a n d D S C - T T 1 . I n a d e q u a t e f l o w o c c u r r e d a t s i t e D S C - TC 1 , a n d t h e s a m p l e b o t t l e d i d n o t f i l l . 3/ 1 / 2 0 1 2 S WQ ( P 1 ) W Q ( P 1 ) Si t e s D S C - T C 1 , M C 1 , a n d T T 1 , a l o n g w i t h n e w s i t e s D S C - T T 2 , T T 3 , T T 4 , T T 5 , T C 2 , a n d D C 1 w e r e se t u p t o s a m p l e t h i s s n o w m e l t e v e n t . A s a m p l e w a s s u c c e s s f u l l y c o l l e c t e d a t s i t e D S C - T T 4 . In a d e q u a t e f l o w o c c u r r e d a t s i t e s D S C - T T 1 , T T 2 , T T 3 , T T 5 , T C 2 , T C 1 , M C 1 , a n d D C 1 a n d t h e sa m p l e b o t t l e d i d n o t f i l l . 3/ 2 / 2 0 1 2 S WQ ( P 1 ) Si t e s D S C - T C 1 , M C 1 , a n d T T 1 , a l o n g w i t h n e w s i t e s D S C - T T 2 , T T 3 , T T 4 , T T 5 , T C 2 , a n d D C 1 w e r e se t u p t o s a m p l e t h i s s n o w m e l t e v e n t . S a m p l e s w e r e s u c c e s s f u l l y c o l l e c t e d a t s i t e s D S C - T T 2 , T T 4 an d T T 5 . I n a d e q u a t e f l o w o c c u r r e d a t s i t e s D S C - T T 1 , T T 3 , T C 2 , T C 1 , M C 1 , a n d D C 1 a n d t h e sa m p l e b o t t l e d i d n o t f i l l . 3/ 5 / 2 0 1 2 S WQ ( P 1 ) W Q ( P 1 ) Si t e s D S C - T C 1 , T T 1 , T T 2 , T T 3 , T T 4 , T T 5 , T C 2 , a n d D C 1 w e r e s e t u p t o s a m p l e t h i s s n o w m e l t ev e n t . S i t e D S C - M C 1 w a s n o t s e t u p , a s i t h a s b e e n r e t i r e d f o r t h e r e m a i n d e r o f t h e s a m p l i n g se a s o n . S a m p l e s w e r e s u c c e s s f u l l y c o l l e c t e d a t s i t e s D S C - T T 4 a n d T T 5 . I n a d e q u a t e f l o w o c c u r r e d at s i t e s D S C - T T 1 , T T 2 , D C 1 , T T 3 , T C 2 , a n d D C 1 a n d t h e s a m p l e b o t t l e d i d n o t f i l l . 3/ 8 / 2 0 1 2 S WQ ( P 1 ) Si t e s D S C - T T 1 , T T 2 , T T 3 , T C 2 , a n d D C 1 w e r e s e t u p t o s a m p l e t h i s s n o w m e l t e v e n t . S i t e D S C - MC 1 w a s n o t s e t u p , a s i t h a s b e e n r e t i r e d f o r t h e r e m a i n d e r o f t h e s a m p l i n g s e a s o n . A s a m p l e wa s s u c c e s s f u l l y c o l l e c t e d a t s i t e D S C - T T 2 . I n a d e q u a t e f l o w o c c u r r e d a t s i t e s D S C - T T 1 , D C 1 , T T 3 , TC 2 , a n d D C 1 a n d t h e s a m p l e b o t t l e d i d n o t f i l l . 3/ 1 3 / 2 0 1 2 M WQ ( P 1 ) W Q ( P 1 ) W Q ( P 1 ) W Q ( P 1 ) Si t e s D S C - T T 1 , T T 2 , T T 3 , T T 4 , T T 5 , T C 1 , T C 2 , a n d D C 1 w e r e s e t u p t o s a m p l e t h i s m i x e d e v e n t . Si t e D S C - M C 1 w a s n o t s e t u p , a s i t h a s b e e n r e t i r e d f o r t h e r e m a i n d e r o f t h e s a m p l i n g s e a s o n . A sa m p l e w a s s u c c e s s f u l l y c o l l e c t e d a t s i t e s D S C - T T 2 , T T 4 , T T 5 , a n d T C 2 . I n a d e q u a t e f l o w o c c u r r e d at s i t e s D S C - T T 1 , D C 1 , T T 3 , a n d T C 1 a n d t h e s a m p l e b o t t l e d i d n o t f i l l . 3/ 1 5 / 2 0 1 2 M WQ ( P 1 ) Si t e s D S C - T T 1 , T C 1 , T T 3 , a n d D C 1 w e r e s e t u p t o s a m p l e t h i s m i x e d e v e n t . S i t e s D S C - T T 2 , T T 4 , TT 5 , a n d T C 2 w e r e n o t s e t u p b e c a u s e s a m p l e s w e r e c o l l e c t e d a t t h e s e s i t e s e r l i e r i n t h e w e e k . Si t e D S C - M C 1 w a s n o t s e t u p , a s i t h a s b e e n r e t i r e d f o r t h e r e m a i n d e r o f t h e s a m p l i n g s e a s o n . A sa m p l e w a s s u c c e s s f u l l y c o l l e c t e d a t S i t e D S C - D C 1 . I n a d e q u a t e f l o w o c c u r r e d a t s i t e s D S C - T T 1 , TT 3 , a n d T C 1 . 3/ 1 6 / 2 0 1 2 M W Q ( P 1 ) W Q ( P 1 ) W Q ( P 1 ) W Q ( P 1 ) W Q ( P 1 ) W Q ( P 1 ) W Q ( P 1 ) W Q ( P 1 ) Si t e s D S C - T T 1 , T T 2 , T T 3 , T T 4 , T T 5 , T C 1 , T C 2 , a n d D C 1 w e r e s e t u p t o s a m p l e t h i s m i x e d e v e n t . Si t e D S C - M C 1 w a s n o t s e t u p , a s i t h a s b e e n r e t i r e d f o r t h e r e m a i n d e r o f t h e s a m p l i n g s e a s o n . A sa m p l e w a s s u c c e s s f u l l y c o l l e c t e d a t a l l m o n i t o r i n g s i t e s s e t u p ( D S C - T T 1 , T T 2 , T T 3 , T T 4 , T T 5 , DC 1 , T C 1 a n d T C 2 ) . 3/ 2 1 / 2 0 1 2 S W Q ( P 1 ) WQ ( P 1 ) W Q ( P 1 ) Si t e s D S C - T T 1 , T T 2 , T T 3 , T T 4 , T T 5 , T C 1 , T C 2 , a n d D C 1 w e r e s e t u p t o s a m p l e t h i s s n o w m e l t ev e n t . S i t e D S C - M C 1 w a s n o t s e t u p , a s i t h a s b e e n r e t i r e d f o r t h e r e m a i n d e r o f t h e s a m p l i n g se a s o n . A s a m p l e w a s s u c c e s s f u l l y c o l l e c t e d a t s i t e s D S C - T T 4 , T C 1 a n d T C 2 . F l o w d i d n o t r e a c h th e r e q u i r e d l e v e l f o r s a m p l e c o l l e c t i o n a t s i t e s D S C - T T 1 , D S C - T T 2 , D S C - T T 3 , D S C - T T 5 , o r D S C - DC 1 . 3/ 2 8 / 2 0 1 2 M W Q ( P 1 ) W Q ( P 1 ) W Q ( P 1 ) W Q ( P 1 ) W Q ( P 1 ) W Q ( P 1 ) W Q ( P 1 ) W Q ( P 1 ) Si t e s D S C - T T 1 , T T 2 , T T 3 , T T 4 , T T 5 , T C 1 , T C 2 , a n d D C 1 w e r e s e t u p t o s a m p l e t h i s m i x e v e n t . Si t e D S C - M C 1 w a s n o t s e t u p , a s i t h a s b e e n r e t i r e d f o r t h e r e m a i n d e r o f t h e s a m p l i n g s e a s o n . A sa m p l e w a s s u c c e s s f u l l y c o l l e c t e d a t s i t e s D S C - T T 1 , T T 2 , T T 3 , T T 4 , T T 5 , T C 1 , T C 2 , a n d D C 1 . 4/ 1 2 / 2 0 1 2 S WQ ( P 1 ) W Q ( P 1 ) W Q ( P 1 ) Si t e s D S C T T 3 , T C 1 , T C 2 , a n d D C 1 w e r e s e t u p t o s a m p l e t h i s m i x e v e n t . S i t e D S C - M C 1 w a s n o t se t u p , a s i t h a s b e e n r e t i r e d f o r t h e r e m a i n d e r o f t h e s a m p l i n g s e a s o n . A s a m p l e w a s s u c c e s s f u l l y co l l e c t e d a t s i t e s D S C - T T 3 , T C 2 , a n d D C 1 . F l o w d i d n o t r e a c h t h e r e q u i r e d l e v e l f o r s a m p l e co l l e c t i o n a t s i t e D S C - T C 1 . 4/ 2 6 / 2 0 1 2 R W Q ( P 1 ) WQ ( P 1 ) W Q ( P 1 ) Si t e s D S C T T 3 , T C 1 , a n d D C 1 w e r e s e t u p t o s a m p l e t h i s m i x e v e n t . S i t e D S C - M C 1 w a s n o t s e t u p , as i t h a s b e e n r e t i r e d f o r t h e r e m a i n d e r o f t h e s a m p l i n g s e a s o n . A s a m p l e w a s s u c c e s s f u l l y co l l e c t e d a t s i t e s D S C - T T 3 , T C 1 , a n d D C 1 . 8/ 1 4 / 2 0 1 2 R WQ ( P 1 ) Sa m p l e o b t a i n e d a t s i t e D S C - T T 3 d u r i n g i n t e n s e t h u n d e r s t o r m . D i d n o t m o b i l i z e t o o t h e r s i t e s be a c a u s e q u o t a o f 5 s a m p l e s h a v e b e e n c o l l e c t e d . Sa m p l e D a t e s Ev e n t T y p e La h o n t a n (D S C - M C 2 ) No r t h s t a r (D S C - M C 3 ) 12 / 1 4 / 2 0 1 0 M W Q ( P 1 ) W Q ( P 1 ) 12 / 1 8 / 2 0 1 0 M W Q ( P 1 ) W Q ( P 1 ) 12 / 2 8 / 2 0 1 0 M 1/ 1 7 / 2 0 1 1 S W Q ( P 1 ) 3/ 2 / 2 0 1 1 M W Q ( P 1 ) 3/ 1 0 / 2 0 1 1 M W Q ( P 1 ) 3/ 1 4 / 2 0 1 1 S W Q ( P 1 ) W Q ( P 1 ) 3/ 3 1 / 2 0 1 1 S W Q ( P 1 ) W Q ( P 1 ) 4/ 1 7 / 2 0 1 1 M W Q ( P 1 ) 5/ 2 5 / 2 0 1 1 R WQ ( P 1 ) 6/ 6 / 2 0 1 1 M WQ ( P 1 ) Sa m p l e D a t e s Ev e n t T y p e La h o n t a n (D S C - M C 2 ) No r t h s t a r (D S C - M C 3 ) 10 / 5 / 2 0 1 1 R W Q ( P 1 ) 1/ 2 0 / 2 0 1 2 M W Q ( P 1 ) 1/ 2 5 / 2 0 1 2 S W Q ( P 1 ) 3/ 5 / 2 0 1 2 S W Q ( P 1 ) 3/ 1 3 / 2 0 1 2 M W Q ( P 1 ) 3/ 1 6 / 2 0 1 2 M W Q ( P 1 ) W Q ( P 1 ) 3/ 2 1 / 2 0 1 2 S W Q ( P 1 ) W Q ( P 1 ) No f l o w o b s e r v e d o r e v i d e n t a t N o r t h s t a r s i t e . U p s t r e a m b a s i n d i d n o t f i l l . Sn o w m e l t r u n o f f d i d n o t p r o d u c e e n o u g h f l o w f o r a s a m p l e a t D S C - M C 3 Th i s w a s a r a i n o n s n o w e v e n t t h a t p r o d u c e d l a r g e q u a n t i t i e s o f r u n o f f . Ho w e v e r , t h e i n f i l t r a t i o n b a s i n s a t D S C - M C 3 d i d n o t f i l l , a n d i n s u f f i c i e n t fl o w o c c u r r e d a t t h i s s i t e . Th i s w a s a r a i n o n s n o w e v e n t t h a t p r o d u c e d r u n o f f . H o w e v e r , t h e in f i l t r a t i o n b a s i n s a t D S C - M C 3 d i d n o t f i l l , a n d i n s u f f i c i e n t f l o w o c c u r r e d a t th i s s i t e . Sn o w m e l t e v e n t . Sn o w m e l t e v e n t . No f l o w o b s e r v e d o r e v i d e n t a t N o r t h s t a r s i t e . U p s t r e a m b a s i n d i d n o t f i l l . Lo w b a s e f l o w o b s e r v e d a t N o r t h s t a r s i t e , b u t f l o w d i d n o t i n c r e a s e su f f i c i e n t l y f o r s a m p l e c o l l e c t i o n . U p s t r e a m b a s i n d i d n o t f i l l . Ra i n t u r n e d t o s n o w a t e n d o f e v e n t . ( 0 . 8 i n c h e s a t T r u c k e e S N O T E L ) ; N o ro a d m a i n t e n a n c e a c t i v i t i e s o b s e r v e d . T h e c h a n n e l t h a t f e e d s S i t e D S C - MC 2 b e g a n t o f l o w a t a p p r o x i m a t e l y 1 8 : 0 0 . T h e b a s i n a b o v e D S C - M C 3 di d n o t f i l l . T h e s n o w i n f i l t r a t e d a n d d i d n o t r u n i n t o c h a n n e l a b o v e s i t e . Mi x E v e n t b e g a n d u r i n g t h e e v e n i n g o f 6 / 6 / 2 0 1 1 a n d c h a n g e d t o s n o w ov e r n i g h t . S a m p l e w a s s u c c e s s f u l l y c o l l e c t e d a t a p p r o x i m a t e l y 0 0 : 3 0 o n th e m o r n i n g o f 6 / 6 / 2 0 1 1 . N o r t h s t a r p a r k i n g l o t b a s i n o v e r f l o w e d . No t e s No f l o w o b s e r v e d a t L a h o n t a n S i t e . D r a i n a g e c h a n n e l a n d a r e a s o i l s d r y . No f l o w o b s e r v e d o r e v i d e n t a t N o r t h s t a r s i t e . U p s t r e a m b a s i n d i d n o t f i l l . WY 2 0 1 2 P l a c e r C o u n t y C o m m u n i t y Co m m u n i t y L e v e l D i s c r e t e Wa t e r Q u a l i t y M o n i t o r i n g E v e n t T a l l y Mi x E v e n t . Sa m p l e s o b t a i n e d f r o m b o t h m o n i t o r i n g s i t e s . Sa m p l e s o b t a i n e d f r o m b o t h m o n i t o r i n g s i t e s . U p s t r e a m b a s i n a t N o r t h s t a r si t e d i d n o t f i l l . Co m m e n t s D u e t o c o l d t e m p e r a t u r e s , t h i s s t o r m p r o d u c e d m o s t l y s n o w f a l l . F l o w d i d no t r e a c h t h e r e q u i r e d l e v e l f o r a s a m p l e t o b e c o l l e c t e d a t S i t e s D S C - MC 2 a n d D S C - M C 3 . WY 2 0 1 1 P l a c e r C o u n t y C o m m u n i t y Co m m u n i t y L e v e l D i s c r e t e Wa t e r Q u a l i t y M o n i t o r i n g E v e n t T a l l y 3/ 2 8 / 2 0 1 2 M W Q ( P 1 ) 4/ 2 6 / 2 0 1 2 R W Q ( P 1 ) W Q ( P 1 ) 8/ 1 4 / 2 0 1 2 R WQ ( P 1 ) Sa m p l e D a t e s Ev e n t T y p e La h o n t a n (D S C - M C 2 ) No r t h s t a r (D S C - M C 3 ) 11 / 1 7 / 2 0 1 2 M i x e d WQ ( P 1 ) W Q ( P 1 ) 11 / 2 8 / 2 0 1 2 R a i n WQ ( P 1 ) W Q ( P 1 ) 11 / 3 0 / 2 0 1 2 M i x e d WQ ( P 1 ) W Q ( P 1 ) 12 / 5 / 2 0 1 2 R a i n WQ ( P 1 ) W Q ( P 1 ) 3/ 2 0 / 2 0 1 3 M i x e d WQ ( P 1 ) W Q ( P 1 ) 3/ 3 1 / 2 0 1 3 M i x e d WQ ( P 1 ) W Q ( P 1 ) 5/ 8 / 2 0 1 3 R a i n WQ ( P 1 ) W Q ( P 1 ) 9/ 2 1 / 2 0 1 3 R a i n WQ ( P 1 ) Sa m p l e D a t e s Ev e n t T y p e No r t h s t a r D r i v e (D S C - M C 4 ) As p e n G r o v e (D S C - M C 5 ) 1/ 3 0 / 2 0 1 4 M i x W Q ( P 1 ) W Q ( P 1 ) 2/ 8 / 2 0 1 4 M i x W Q ( P 1 ) W Q ( P 1 ) 2/ 2 6 / 2 0 1 4 M i x W Q ( P 1 ) W Q ( P 1 ) 3/ 6 / 2 0 1 4 M i x W Q ( P 1 ) W Q ( P 1 ) 3/ 2 7 / 2 0 1 4 S n o w m e l t W Q ( P 1 ) W Q ( P 1 ) 4/ 2 5 / 2 0 1 4 R a i n W Q ( P 1 ) W Q ( P 1 ) 5/ 2 0 / 2 0 1 4 R a i n W Q ( P 1 ) W Q ( P 1 ) 7/ 3 1 / 2 0 1 4 R a i n W Q ( P 1 ) W Q ( P 1 ) Lo w b a s e f l o w o b s e r v e d a t N o r t h s t a r s i t e , b u t f l o w d i d n o t i n c r e a s e su f f i c i e n t l y f o r s a m p l e c o l l e c t i o n . U p s t r e a m b a s i n d i d n o t f i l l . ~3 . 2 " o f r a i n f a l l i n g f r o m e v e n i n g 1 1 / 2 9 , t h r o u g h l a t e e v e n i n g 1 1 / 3 0 . N s t a r pa r k i n g l o t b a s i n o v e r f l o w e d , c o n t r i b u t i n g t o s a m p l e v o l u m e . ~. 7 5 " o f r a i n f a l l i n g f r o m e v e n i n g 1 2 / 4 t h r o u g h e v e n i n g 1 2 / 5 / 1 2 . N s t a r pa r k i n g l o t o v e r f l o w e d , c o n t r i b u t i n g t o s a m p l e v o l u m e . Mi x e d e v e n t o v e r n i g h t i n t o t h e m o r n i n g h o u r s , t a p e r i n g o f f b y e a r l y af t e r n o o n . M o s t i n t e n s e p e r i o d o f p r e c i p f r o m 4 - 6 a m . N o r t h s t a r B a s i n d i d no t o v e r f l o w d u r i n g t h i s e v e n t . Mi x e d e v e n t d u r i n g t h e e a r l y m o r n i n g h o u r s , t a p e r i n g o f f b y m i d m o r n i n g . Mo s t i n t e n s e p e r i o d o f p r e c i p f r o m 4 - 6 a m . N o r t h s t a r B a s i n d i d n o t ov e r f l o w d u r i n g t h i s e v e n t . Sa m p l e s o b t a i n e d f r o m b o t h m o n i t o r i n g s i t e s . R a i n e v e n t . Sa m p l e o b t a i n e d a t s i t e D S C - M C 3 d u r i n g i n t e n s e t h u n d e r s t o r m . D i d n o t mo b i l i z e t o s i t e D S C - M C 2 b e a c a u s e q u o t a o f 8 s a m p l e s h a v e b e e n co l l e c t e d . Co m m e n t s ~0 . 8 " o f p r e c i p f a l l i n g f r o m F r i d a y a f t e r n o o n , p i c k i n g u p d u r i n g t h e af t e r n o o n o f S a t u r d a y , w h e n b o t t l e s m o s t l i k e l y f i l l e d . M o s t l y r a i n , s l i g h t am o u n t s o f s n o w o v e r n i g h t . ~0 . 8 " o f r a i n f a l l i n g f r o m l a t e m o r n i n g 1 1 / 2 8 , t h r o u g h l a t e a f t e r n o o n . Bo t t l e a c t i v e l y f i l l i n g a t L a h o n t a n w h i l e p e r s o n n e l w e r e a t s i t e a t 1 5 0 0 . Ns t a r b o t t l e f i l l e d e a r l i e r ( l i k e l y ~ 1 4 0 0 ) . N s t a r b a s i n a t p a r k i n g l o t n o t f i l l e d at t i m e o f b o t t l e f i l l i n g . F l o w c a m e f r o m r o a d w a y ( S k i d d e r T r a i l ) . WY 2 0 1 3 P l a c e r C o u n t y C o m m u n i t y Co m m u n i t y L e v e l D i s c r e t e Wa t e r Q u a l i t y M o n i t o r i n g E v e n t T a l l y Ra i n e v e n t ; N o s n o w a c c u m u l a t i o n o n r o a d w a y . Th u n d e r s t o r m e v e n t . N o a b r a s i v e s u s e d . R o a d s w e p t d u r i n g l a t e s p r i n g / ea r l y s u m m e r . WQ ( P 1 ) = P a s i v e w a t e r q u a l i t y s a m p l e c o l l e c t e d Ra i n e v e n t s t a r t i n g a f t e r n o o n o f 5 / 7 1 3 , b e c o m i n g m o r e i n t e n s e o v e r n i g h t . Ta p e r e d o f f b y m o r n i n g . N o r t h s t a r b a s i n d i d n o t o v e r f l o w d u r i n g t h i s ev e n t . Ra i n e v e n t s t a r t i n g m o r n i n g o f 9 / 2 1 / 1 3 . S a m p l e c o l l e c t e d m i d s t o r m a t 12 : 2 0 o n 9 / 2 1 / 1 3 N o r t h s t a r b a s i n d i d n o t o v e r f l o w d u r i n g t h i s e v e n t . Co m m e n t s Ev e n t s t a r t e d a s r a i n a t 1 3 0 0 1 - 2 9 - 1 4 a n d t u r n e d t o s n o w a t 0 1 0 0 1 - 3 0 - 14 . A p p r o x i m a t e l y 1 " o f r a i n f a l l f e l l b e f o r e c h a n g i n g t o s n o w . G r a b sa m p l e s o b t a i n e d m o r n i n g o f 1 - 3 0 - 1 4 w h e n l o w f l o w w a s s t i l l o c c u r r i n g . No r o a d w a y s u r f a c e f l o w w a s v i s i b l e a n d s a m p l e s a r e r e p r e s e n t a t v i e o f re s i d u a l r u n o f f / f a l l i n g l i m b . WY 2 0 1 4 P l a c e r C o u n t y Co m m u n i t y Co m m u n i t y L e v e l D i s c r e t e Wa t e r Q u a l i t y M o n i t o r i n g E v e n t T a l l y Mi x e d e v e n t . S n o w L e v e l a b o v e 6 5 0 0 f t t h r o u g h o u t e v e n t . G r a b s a m p l e s ob t a i n e d m o r n i n g o f 2 - 8 - 1 4 w h e n h i g h f l o w s w e r e s t i l l o c c u r r i n g . Mi x e d e v e n t . S n o w L e v e l 7 0 0 0 f t - 6 0 0 0 f t d u r i n g e v e n t . P a s i v e s a m p l e s co l l e c t e d l a t e e v e n i n g o n 2 / 2 6 / 1 4 . Mi x e d e v e n t . S n o w L e v e l 7 0 0 0 f t d u r i n g e v e n t . P a s i v e s a m p l e s c o l l e c t e d ea r l y m o r n i n g o n 3 / 6 / 1 4 . Sn o w m e l t e v e n t . S a m p l e s c o l l e c t e d a s t e m p e r a t u r e s w a r m e d a n d r u n o f f in c r e a s e d . Ra i n e v e n t ; N o s n o w a c c u m u l a t i o n o n r o a d w a y . S a m p l e c o l l e c t e d m i d mo r n i n g d u r i n g i n c r e a s e i n r a i n f a l l i n t e n s i t y . Am m o n i a as N Di s s o l v e d Ph o s p h o r u s Ni t r a t e a n d Ni t r i t e a s N Ni t r a t e as N Ni t r i t e as N Or t h o - ph o s p h a t e To t a l Kj e l d a h l Ni t r o g e n (T K N ) To t a l Ni t r o g e n as N To t a l Ph o s p h o r u s To t a l Su s p e n d e d So l i d s Tu r b i d i t y C 1 0 - C 2 2 C 2 2 - C 3 6 C 6 - C 1 0 Total Extractable Hydrocarbons (C6-C36)pH Electrical Conductivity mg / L mg / L mg / L mg / L mg / L mg / L mg / L mg / L mg / L mg / L NT U mg / L mg / L mg / L mg/L µS DS C - T C 1 2/ 2 4 / 2 0 1 0 0. 0 1 8 0. 1 1 0. 0 7 3 0. 0 1 6 0. 4 9 0. 6 8 0. 2 4 82 12 0 DS C - T C 1 2/ 2 6 / 2 0 1 0 0. 0 7 8 0. 3 6 0. 0 3 4 0. 0 8 1 0. 7 1 1. 1 0. 1 6 71 63 DS C - T C 1 3/ 2 9 / 2 0 1 0 0. 1 0. 2 1 0. 0 1 U 0. 0 4 4 0. 4 9 0. 7 0. 1 3 14 24 DS C - T C 1 4/ 2 2 / 2 0 1 0 0. 0 5 7 0. 6 9 0. 0 1 U 0. 0 4 4 0. 2 7 0. 9 6 0. 1 8 20 30 DS C - T C 1 4/ 2 7 / 2 0 1 0 0. 0 4 9 0. 3 9 0. 0 1 U 0. 0 4 2 0. 4 2 0. 8 1 0. 2 7 38 48 DS C - T C 1 5/ 2 5 / 2 0 1 0 0. 1 3 1. 6 0. 0 1 U 0. 0 8 9 0. 2 8 1. 9 0. 1 4 2 5. 1 DS C - T C 1 DU P 5/ 2 5 / 2 0 1 0 0. 0 7 7 1. 6 0. 0 1 U 0. 0 9 2 0. 2 7 1. 9 0. 1 1 3 5 DS C - T T 1 2/ 5 / 2 0 1 0 0. 0 1 U 0. 2 2 0. 0 3 7 3 3. 2 0. 4 4 16 0 0 13 0 0 DS C - T T 1 2/ 2 4 / 2 0 1 0 0. 0 5 8 0. 1 2 0. 1 0. 0 6 8 1 1. 2 0. 1 2 27 0 J 99 0 DS C - T T 1 DU P 2/ 2 4 / 2 0 1 0 0. 0 4 5 0. 1 1 0. 0 7 3 0. 0 7 1. 2 1. 4 0. 1 4 48 0 J 94 0 DS C - T T 1 2/ 2 6 / 2 0 1 0 0. 0 8 4 0. 2 8 0. 0 4 5 0. 1 2. 9 3. 3 0. 2 6 22 0 0 47 0 DS C - T T 1 3/ 1 2 / 2 0 1 0 0. 0 1 2 0. 4 3 0. 3 3 0. 0 5 7 2. 3 3. 1 2 15 0 0 77 0 DS C - T T 1 3/ 2 9 / 2 0 1 0 0. 0 5 5 0. 1 5 0. 0 1 U 0. 0 9 2 0. 3 9 0. 5 4 0. 0 7 6 33 58 DS C - T T 1 4/ 2 2 / 2 0 1 0 0. 0 2 8 0. 1 2 0. 0 1 5 0. 0 4 2 1. 5 1. 7 0. 4 2 47 0 40 0 DS C - T T 1 4/ 2 7 / 2 0 1 0 0. 0 8 1 0. 1 4 0. 0 1 U 0. 0 8 4 1. 7 1. 9 1. 5 10 0 0 47 0 DS C - T T 1 5/ 1 0 / 2 0 1 0 0. 0 4 8 0. 3 0. 0 5 6 0. 0 5 9 1. 8 2. 2 0. 5 3 47 0 30 0 Qu a l i t y C o n t r o l B B 3 / 1 2 / 2 0 1 0 0 . 0 1 U 0 . 0 1 U 0 . 0 1 U 0 . 0 1 U 0 . 0 5 U 0 . 0 7 U 0 . 0 1 U 1 U 0 . 1 U DS C - M C 1 10 / 4 / 2 0 1 0 0. 1 7 0. 0 1 U 0. 3 1 0. 4 8 0. 2 5 4 7. 9 DS C - M C 1 10 / 4 / 2 0 1 0 0. 1 7 0. 0 1 U 0. 3 1 0. 4 8 0. 2 5 4 7. 9 DS C - M C 1 10 / 2 4 / 2 0 1 0 0. 2 7 0. 0 1 U 0. 3 1 0. 5 8 0. 0 8 8 19 0 54 DS C - M C 1 10 / 2 4 / 2 0 1 0 0. 2 7 0. 0 1 U 0. 3 1 0. 5 8 0. 0 8 8 19 0 54 DS C - M C 1 12 / 1 4 / 2 0 1 0 0. 2 5 0. 2 5 0. 0 1 U 14 0 DS C - M C 1 12 / 1 4 / 2 0 1 0 0. 2 5 0. 2 5 0. 0 1 U 14 0 DS C - M C 1 3/ 2 / 2 0 1 1 0. 1 7 0. 0 1 U 0. 7 0. 8 7 0. 1 9 25 0 22 0 DS C - M C 1 3/ 2 / 2 0 1 1 0. 1 7 0. 0 1 U 0. 7 0. 8 7 0. 1 9 25 0 22 0 DS C - M C 1 3/ 6 / 2 0 1 1 0. 2 3 0. 0 1 U 0. 6 2 0. 8 5 0. 1 9 24 0 12 0 DS C - M C 1 3/ 6 / 2 0 1 1 0. 2 3 0. 0 1 U 0. 6 2 0. 8 5 0. 1 9 24 0 12 0 DS C - M C 1 3/ 2 8 / 2 0 1 1 0. 5 9 0. 0 1 U 0. 0 5 5 0. 6 5 0. 0 4 8 15 13 DS C - M C 1 3/ 2 8 / 2 0 1 1 0. 5 9 0. 0 1 U 0. 0 5 5 0. 6 5 0. 0 4 8 15 13 DS C - M C 1 4/ 1 1 / 2 0 1 1 0. 4 9 0. 0 1 U 0. 1 0. 5 9 0. 0 5 1 11 7. 3 DS C - M C 1 4/ 1 1 / 2 0 1 1 0. 4 9 0. 0 1 U 0. 1 0. 5 9 0. 0 5 1 11 7. 3 DS C - M C 1 5/ 2 5 / 2 0 1 1 0. 0 1 U 0. 0 2 5 U 1. 4 1. 4 0. 3 3 64 0 23 0 DS C - M C 1 5/ 2 5 / 2 0 1 1 0. 0 1 U 0. 0 2 5 U 1. 4 1. 4 0. 3 3 64 0 23 0 DS C - M C 2 12 / 1 4 / 2 0 1 0 0. 0 5 U 0. 0 3 0. 0 1 2 0. 0 1 U 0. 0 2 8 0. 2 7 0. 2 8 0. 0 9 9 3 1. 3 DS C - M C 2 12 / 1 4 / 2 0 1 0 0. 0 5 U 0. 0 3 0. 0 1 2 0. 0 1 U 0. 0 2 8 0. 2 7 0. 2 8 0. 0 9 9 3 1. 3 DS C - M C 2 12 / 1 8 / 2 0 1 0 0. 0 5 U 0. 0 3 6 0. 0 4 0. 0 1 U 0. 0 4 6 0. 0 5 U 0. 0 7 U 0. 0 5 8 11 2. 8 DS C - M C 2 12 / 1 8 / 2 0 1 0 0. 0 5 U 0. 0 3 6 0. 0 4 0. 0 1 U 0. 0 4 6 0. 0 5 U 0. 0 7 U 0. 0 5 8 11 2. 8 DS C - M C 2 1/ 1 7 / 2 0 1 1 0. 0 5 U 0. 0 2 5 0. 0 1 U 0. 0 1 U 0. 0 1 U 0. 0 1 2 0. 1 6 0. 1 6 0. 0 2 4 1 U 0. 3 5 DS C - M C 2 DU P 1/ 1 7 / 2 0 1 1 0. 0 5 U 0. 0 3 0. 0 1 U 0. 0 1 U 0. 0 1 U 0. 0 1 1 0. 0 8 0. 0 8 0. 0 2 2 1 0. 4 2 DS C - M C 2 TR I P L I C A T E 1/ 1 7 / 2 0 1 1 0. 0 5 U 0. 0 2 5 0. 0 1 U 0. 0 1 U 0. 0 1 U 0. 0 1 2 0. 0 5 4 0. 0 7 U 0. 0 2 1 U 0. 5 2 DS C - M C 2 1/ 1 7 / 2 0 1 1 0. 0 5 U 0. 0 2 5 0. 0 1 U 0. 0 1 U 0. 0 1 U 0. 0 1 2 0. 1 6 0. 1 6 0. 0 2 4 1 U 0. 3 5 DS C - M C 2 DU P 1/ 1 7 / 2 0 1 1 0. 0 5 U 0. 0 3 0. 0 1 U 0. 0 1 U 0. 0 1 U 0. 0 1 1 0. 0 8 0. 0 8 0. 0 2 2 1 0. 4 2 DS C - M C 2 TR I P L I C A T E 1/ 1 7 / 2 0 1 1 0. 0 5 U 0. 0 2 5 0. 0 1 U 0. 0 1 U 0. 0 1 U 0. 0 1 2 0. 0 5 4 0. 0 7 U 0. 0 2 1 U 0. 5 2 DS C - M C 2 3/ 2 / 2 0 1 1 0. 0 6 3 0. 0 3 0. 1 3 0. 0 1 U 0. 0 1 5 0. 1 6 0. 2 9 0. 0 3 6 1 U 1. 9 DS C - M C 2 3/ 2 / 2 0 1 1 0. 0 6 3 0. 0 3 0. 1 3 0. 0 1 U 0. 0 1 5 0. 1 6 0. 2 9 0. 0 3 6 1 U 1. 9 DS C - M C 2 3/ 1 0 / 2 0 1 1 0. 0 8 2 0. 0 2 4 0. 1 8 0. 0 1 U 0. 0 2 0. 2 2 0. 4 0. 0 3 2 1 U 1. 9 DS C - M C 2 3/ 1 0 / 2 0 1 1 0. 0 8 2 0. 0 2 4 0. 1 8 0. 0 1 U 0. 0 2 0. 2 2 0. 4 0. 0 3 2 1 U 1. 9 DS C - M C 2 3/ 1 4 / 2 0 1 1 0. 0 5 U 0. 0 3 0. 1 8 0. 0 1 U 0. 0 2 5 0. 3 6 0. 5 4 0. 1 73 11 DS C - M C 2 3/ 1 4 / 2 0 1 1 0. 0 5 U 0. 0 3 0. 1 8 0. 0 1 U 0. 0 2 5 0. 3 6 0. 5 4 0. 1 73 11 DS C - M C 2 3/ 3 1 / 2 0 1 1 0. 0 5 U 0. 0 1 8 0. 0 1 U 0. 0 1 U 0. 0 1 6 0. 1 4 0. 1 4 0. 0 1 7 9 2. 8 DS C - M C 2 3/ 3 1 / 2 0 1 1 0. 0 5 U 0. 0 1 8 0. 0 1 U 0. 0 1 U 0. 0 1 6 0. 1 4 0. 1 4 0. 0 1 7 9 2. 8 DS C - M C 2 5/ 2 5 / 2 0 1 1 0. 0 5 U 0. 0 3 6 0. 2 1 0. 0 2 5 U 0. 0 2 3 0. 3 7 0. 5 8 0. 0 7 2 8 2. 1 DS C - M C 2 5/ 2 5 / 2 0 1 1 0. 0 5 U 0. 0 3 6 0. 2 1 0. 0 2 5 U 0. 0 2 3 0. 3 7 0. 5 8 0. 0 7 2 8 2. 1 DS C - M C 3 12 / 1 4 / 2 0 1 0 0. 0 5 U 0. 0 5 1 0. 0 1 U 0. 0 1 U 0. 0 3 9 0. 8 2 0. 8 2 0. 1 7 17 0 83 DS C - M C 3 12 / 1 4 / 2 0 1 0 0. 0 5 U 0. 0 5 1 0. 0 1 U 0. 0 1 U 0. 0 3 9 0. 8 2 0. 8 2 0. 1 7 17 0 83 St a t i o n N a m e S a m p l e T y p e Sa m p l e Co l l e c t i o n Da t e Wa t e r Y e a r 2 0 1 1 Wa t e r Y e a r 2 0 1 0 Am m o n i a as N Di s s o l v e d Ph o s p h o r u s Ni t r a t e a n d Ni t r i t e a s N Ni t r a t e as N Ni t r i t e as N Or t h o - ph o s p h a t e To t a l Kj e l d a h l Ni t r o g e n (T K N ) To t a l Ni t r o g e n as N To t a l Ph o s p h o r u s To t a l Su s p e n d e d So l i d s Tu r b i d i t y C 1 0 - C 2 2 C 2 2 - C 3 6 C 6 - C 1 0 Total Extractable Hydrocarbons (C6-C36)pH Electrical Conductivity mg / L mg / L mg / L mg / L mg / L mg / L mg / L mg / L mg / L mg / L NT U mg / L mg / L mg / L mg/L µS St a t i o n N a m e S a m p l e T y p e Sa m p l e Co l l e c t i o n Da t e Wa t e r Y e a r 2 0 1 0 DS C - M C 3 12 / 1 8 / 2 0 1 0 0. 0 5 3 0. 0 6 2 0. 0 1 U 0. 0 1 U 0. 0 8 8 0. 3 3 0. 3 3 0. 0 9 2 16 15 DS C - M C 3 12 / 1 8 / 2 0 1 0 0. 0 5 3 0. 0 6 2 0. 0 1 U 0. 0 1 U 0. 0 8 8 0. 3 3 0. 3 3 0. 0 9 2 16 15 DS C - M C 3 3/ 1 4 / 2 0 1 1 0. 0 5 U 0. 0 5 0. 0 1 1 0. 0 1 U 0. 0 3 4 0. 1 7 0. 1 9 0. 0 6 5 25 10 DS C - M C 3 3/ 1 4 / 2 0 1 1 0. 0 5 U 0. 0 5 0. 0 1 1 0. 0 1 U 0. 0 3 4 0. 1 7 0. 1 9 0. 0 6 5 25 10 DS C - M C 3 3/ 3 1 / 2 0 1 1 0. 0 5 U 0. 0 3 4 0. 0 1 3 0. 0 1 U 0. 0 3 8 0. 1 2 0. 1 4 0. 0 6 5 6 8. 3 DS C - M C 3 3/ 3 1 / 2 0 1 1 0. 0 5 U 0. 0 3 4 0. 0 1 3 0. 0 1 U 0. 0 3 8 0. 1 2 0. 1 4 0. 0 6 5 6 8. 3 DS C - M C 3 4/ 1 8 / 2 0 1 1 0. 0 5 U 0. 0 4 0. 0 1 U 0. 0 1 U 0. 0 2 6 0. 1 4 0. 1 4 0. 0 5 1 4. 9 DS C - M C 3 4/ 1 8 / 2 0 1 1 0. 0 5 U 0. 0 4 0. 0 1 U 0. 0 1 U 0. 0 2 6 0. 1 4 0. 1 4 0. 0 5 1 4. 9 DS C - M C 3 6/ 6 / 2 0 1 1 0. 0 5 U 0. 0 2 3 0. 0 1 9 0. 0 1 U 0. 0 1 3 1. 3 1. 3 0. 1 3 53 0 12 0 DS C - M C 3 6/ 6 / 2 0 1 1 0. 0 5 U 0. 0 2 3 0. 0 1 9 0. 0 1 U 0. 0 1 3 1. 3 1. 3 0. 1 3 53 0 12 0 DS C - T C 1 10 / 4 / 2 0 1 0 0. 0 7 0. 0 1 U 0. 3 7 0. 4 4 1. 5 20 36 DS C - T C 1 10 / 4 / 2 0 1 0 0. 0 7 0. 0 1 U 0. 3 7 0. 4 4 1. 5 20 36 DS C - T C 1 10 / 2 4 / 2 0 1 0 0. 0 2 1 0. 0 1 U 0. 1 8 0. 2 1 0. 0 7 2 14 0 42 DS C - T C 1 10 / 2 4 / 2 0 1 0 0. 0 2 1 0. 0 1 U 0. 1 8 0. 2 1 0. 0 7 2 14 0 42 DS C - T C 1 12 / 1 4 / 2 0 1 0 0. 0 5 5 0. 0 5 5 0. 0 1 U 0. 8 1 0. 9 2 0. 2 2 24 0 12 0 DS C - T C 1 12 / 1 4 / 2 0 1 0 0. 0 5 5 0. 0 5 5 0. 0 1 U 0. 8 1 0. 9 2 0. 2 2 24 0 12 0 DS C - T C 1 12 / 1 8 / 2 0 1 0 0. 0 7 9 0. 0 7 3 0. 0 1 U 0. 7 1 0. 8 6 0. 0 7 2 58 96 DS C - T C 1 12 / 1 8 / 2 0 1 0 0. 0 7 9 0. 0 7 3 0. 0 1 U 0. 7 1 0. 8 6 0. 0 7 2 58 96 DS C - T C 1 12 / 2 8 / 2 0 1 0 1. 1 0. 0 1 U 0. 2 4 1. 3 0. 0 5 8 6 12 DS C - T C 1 12 / 2 8 / 2 0 1 0 1. 1 0. 0 1 U 0. 2 4 1. 3 0. 0 5 8 6 12 DS C - T C 1 2/ 2 2 / 2 0 1 1 0. 8 2 0. 0 1 U 0. 2 6 1. 1 0. 0 6 4 1 5. 8 DS C - T C 1 DU P 2/ 2 2 / 2 0 1 1 0. 8 2 0. 0 1 U 0. 3 1. 1 0. 0 7 7 1 U 6. 5 DS C - T C 1 TR I P L I C A T E 2/ 2 2 / 2 0 1 1 0. 8 2 0. 0 1 U 0. 3 5 1. 2 0. 0 6 7 1 U 5. 9 DS C - T C 1 2/ 2 2 / 2 0 1 1 0. 8 2 0. 0 1 U 0. 2 6 1. 1 0. 0 6 4 1 5. 8 DS C - T C 1 DU P 2/ 2 2 / 2 0 1 1 0. 8 2 0. 0 1 U 0. 3 1. 1 0. 0 7 7 1 U 6. 5 DS C - T C 1 TR I P L I C A T E 2/ 2 2 / 2 0 1 1 0. 8 2 0. 0 1 U 0. 3 5 1. 2 0. 0 6 7 1 U 5. 9 DS C - T C 1 3/ 6 / 2 0 1 1 0. 7 0. 0 1 U 0. 2 8 0. 9 8 0. 0 5 4 34 29 DS C - T C 1 3/ 6 / 2 0 1 1 0. 7 0. 0 1 U 0. 2 8 0. 9 8 0. 0 5 4 34 29 DS C - T C 1 3/ 1 4 / 2 0 1 1 0. 6 4 0. 0 1 U 0. 6 1. 2 0. 1 3 15 0 10 0 DS C - T C 1 3/ 1 4 / 2 0 1 1 0. 6 4 0. 0 1 U 0. 6 1. 2 0. 1 3 15 0 10 0 DS C - T T 1 10 / 2 4 / 2 0 1 0 0. 1 6 0. 0 1 U 0. 2 1 0. 3 7 0. 0 9 8 13 0 0 30 0 DS C - T T 1 10 / 2 4 / 2 0 1 0 0. 1 6 0. 0 1 U 0. 2 1 0. 3 7 0. 0 9 8 13 0 0 30 0 DS C - T T 1 12 / 1 4 / 2 0 1 0 0. 0 3 1 0. 0 3 1 0. 0 1 U 2 2 0. 6 3 10 0 0 60 0 DS C - T T 1 12 / 1 4 / 2 0 1 0 0. 0 3 1 0. 0 3 1 0. 0 1 U 2 2 0. 6 3 10 0 0 60 0 DS C - T T 1 1/ 1 7 / 2 0 1 1 0. 1 4 0. 1 0. 0 4 4 2. 7 2. 8 0. 2 5 12 0 0 62 0 DS C - T T 1 DU P 1/ 1 7 / 2 0 1 1 0. 1 3 0. 0 9 4 0. 0 3 8 2. 7 2. 9 0. 2 7 12 0 0 66 0 DS C - T T 1 1/ 1 7 / 2 0 1 1 0. 1 4 0. 1 0. 0 4 4 2. 7 2. 8 0. 2 5 12 0 0 62 0 DS C - T T 1 DU P 1/ 1 7 / 2 0 1 1 0. 1 3 0. 0 9 4 0. 0 3 8 2. 7 2. 9 0. 2 7 12 0 0 66 0 DS C - T T 1 3/ 2 / 2 0 1 1 0. 1 3 0. 0 2 1 1. 6 1. 8 0. 2 6 22 0 53 0 DS C - T T 1 3/ 2 / 2 0 1 1 0. 1 3 0. 0 2 1 1. 6 1. 8 0. 2 6 22 0 53 0 DS C - T T 1 3/ 1 4 / 2 0 1 1 0. 7 9 0. 0 1 U 0. 5 1. 3 0. 3 7 90 0 91 0 DS C - T T 1 3/ 1 4 / 2 0 1 1 0. 7 9 0. 0 1 U 0. 5 1. 3 0. 3 7 90 0 91 0 DS C - T T 1 3/ 2 8 / 2 0 1 1 0. 0 9 0. 0 1 U 1. 7 1. 8 0. 3 6 58 0 37 0 DS C - T T 1 3/ 2 8 / 2 0 1 1 0. 0 9 0. 0 1 U 1. 7 1. 8 0. 3 6 58 0 37 0 DS C - T T 1 3/ 3 1 / 2 0 1 1 1 U 1. 5 1 U 1.5 DS C - T T 1 3/ 3 1 / 2 0 1 1 1 U 1. 5 1 U 1.5 DS C - T T 1 4/ 2 0 / 2 0 1 1 0. 1 6 0. 0 1 U 1. 3 1. 4 0. 4 6 11 0 0 30 0 DS C - T T 1 4/ 2 0 / 2 0 1 1 0. 1 6 0. 0 1 U 1. 3 1. 4 0. 4 6 11 0 0 30 0 DS C - T T 1 5/ 2 5 / 2 0 1 1 0. 1 9 0. 0 2 5 U 1. 9 2. 1 0. 3 6 87 0 35 0 DS C - T T 1 5/ 2 5 / 2 0 1 1 0. 1 9 0. 0 2 5 U 1. 9 2. 1 0. 3 6 87 0 35 0 Am m o n i a as N Di s s o l v e d Ph o s p h o r u s Ni t r a t e a n d Ni t r i t e a s N Ni t r a t e as N Ni t r i t e as N Or t h o - ph o s p h a t e To t a l Kj e l d a h l Ni t r o g e n (T K N ) To t a l Ni t r o g e n as N To t a l Ph o s p h o r u s To t a l Su s p e n d e d So l i d s Tu r b i d i t y C 1 0 - C 2 2 C 2 2 - C 3 6 C 6 - C 1 0 Total Extractable Hydrocarbons (C6-C36)pH Electrical Conductivity mg / L mg / L mg / L mg / L mg / L mg / L mg / L mg / L mg / L mg / L NT U mg / L mg / L mg / L mg/L µS St a t i o n N a m e S a m p l e T y p e Sa m p l e Co l l e c t i o n Da t e Wa t e r Y e a r 2 0 1 0 DS C - D C 1 3/ 1 5 / 2 0 1 2 75 0 DS C - D C 1 FI E L D 3/ 1 5 / 2 0 1 2 >1 0 0 0 8 135.8 DS C - D C 1 3/ 1 6 / 2 0 1 2 14 0 DS C - D C 1 FI E L D 3/ 1 6 / 2 0 1 2 17 0 / 1 7 2 8.05 126.1 DS C - D C 1 3/ 2 8 / 2 0 1 2 96 0 DS C - D C 1 FI E L D 3/ 2 8 / 2 0 1 2 93 9 8.13 86.1 DS C - D C 1 4/ 1 2 / 2 0 1 2 12 0 0 DS C - D C 1 FI E L D 4/ 1 2 / 2 0 1 2 >1 0 0 0 8.55 211 DS C - D C 1 4/ 2 6 / 2 0 1 2 73 0 DS C - D C 1 FI E L D 4/ 2 6 / 2 0 1 2 15 2 8.39 99.6 DS C - M C 1 10 / 5 / 2 0 1 1 0. 3 4 0. 3 1 0. 0 3 2 0. 5 4 0. 8 9 0. 1 3 18 0 40 DS C - M C 1 1/ 2 1 / 2 0 1 2 0. 0 1 U J 0. 0 1 U 0. 2 1 0. 2 1 0. 0 9 3 26 18 DS C - M C 1 1/ 2 6 / 2 0 1 2 0. 2 4 0. 0 1 U 0. 5 1 0. 7 5 0. 0 5 6 20 20 DS C - M C 2 1/ 2 0 / 2 0 1 2 0. 0 5 U 0. 9 6 0. 0 1 U J 0. 0 1 U J 1. 1 3. 7 3. 7 0. 9 4 69 16 DS C - M C 2 1/ 2 5 / 2 0 1 2 0. 0 5 U 0. 1 0. 3 9 0. 0 1 U 0. 0 8 4 0. 6 3 1 0. 1 4 1 U 1. 1 DS C - M C 2 3/ 5 / 2 0 1 2 0. 0 6 3 0. 0 5 8 0. 2 0. 0 1 U 0. 0 5 3 0. 4 6 0. 6 6 0. 0 8 4 2 2. 3 DS C - M C 2 3/ 1 3 / 2 0 1 2 0. 0 5 U 0. 0 9 1 0. 0 3 7 0. 0 1 U 0. 1 1 0. 6 9 0. 7 3 0. 2 1 43 11 DS C - M C 2 3/ 1 6 / 2 0 1 2 0. 0 5 U 0. 0 9 9 0. 0 5 0. 0 1 U 0. 0 7 0. 5 0. 6 0. 1 5 17 6. 8 DS C - M C 2 3/ 2 1 / 2 0 1 2 0. 0 5 U 0. 0 1 4 0. 0 1 U 0. 0 1 U 0. 0 2 5 0. 2 1 0. 2 1 0. 0 3 5 5 2. 8 DS C - M C 2 3/ 2 8 / 2 0 1 2 0. 0 5 U 0. 0 2 2 0. 0 1 U 0. 0 1 U 0. 0 1 6 0. 2 5 0. 2 5 0. 0 3 6 1 0. 8 1 DS C - M C 2 4/ 2 6 / 2 0 1 2 0. 0 5 U 0. 0 3 8 0. 0 4 9 0. 0 1 U 0. 0 1 U 0. 2 8 0. 3 3 0. 1 2 6 2. 5 DS C - M C 3 10 / 5 / 2 0 1 1 0. 1 7 0. 4 1 0. 8 1 0. 8 1 0. 0 1 U 0. 5 8 3. 6 4. 4 0. 7 7 11 0 46 DS C - M C 3 3/ 1 6 / 2 0 1 2 0. 0 5 U 0. 0 2 1 0. 0 1 U 0. 0 1 U 0. 0 1 7 0. 3 4 0. 3 4 0. 1 3 39 26 DS C - M C 3 3/ 2 1 / 2 0 1 2 0. 0 5 U 0. 0 1 4 0. 0 1 U 0. 0 1 U 0. 0 2 1 0. 0 9 5 0. 0 9 5 0. 0 4 2 1 U 9. 8 DS C - M C 3 4/ 2 6 / 2 0 1 2 0. 0 5 U 0. 0 1 5 0. 0 5 5 0. 0 5 5 0. 0 1 U 0. 5 5 0. 6 6 0. 1 3 29 0 12 0 DS C - M C 3 DU P 4/ 2 6 / 2 0 1 2 0. 0 5 U 0. 0 1 6 0. 0 5 3 0. 0 5 3 0. 0 1 U 0. 4 7 0. 5 8 0. 0 8 8 29 0 12 0 DS C - M C 3 TR I P L I C A T E 4/ 2 6 / 2 0 1 2 0. 0 5 U 0. 0 1 6 0. 0 7 2 0. 0 5 1 0. 0 1 U 1. 3 J 1. 4 J 0. 0 9 6 28 0 13 0 DS C - M C 3 8/ 1 4 / 2 0 1 2 0. 1 7 0. 1 5 0. 1 3 0. 0 1 2 0. 1 5 3. 2 3. 3 0. 1 7 81 0 31 0 DS C - T C 1 1/ 2 0 / 2 0 1 2 0. 0 5 6 J 0. 0 1 U J 1. 2 1. 3 0. 2 5 36 0 98 DS C - T C 1 3/ 1 6 / 2 0 1 2 68 DS C - T C 1 FI E L D 3/ 1 6 / 2 0 1 2 11 1 / 1 1 1 7.72 382 DS C - T C 1 DU P 3/ 1 6 / 2 0 1 2 69 DS C - T C 1 TR I P L I C A T E 3/ 1 6 / 2 0 1 2 68 DS C - T C 1 3/ 2 1 / 2 0 1 2 3 DS C - T C 1 FI E L D 3/ 2 1 / 2 0 1 2 12 . 1 / 1 2 . 7 7.81 182.9 DS C - T C 1 3/ 2 8 / 2 0 1 2 2 DS C - T C 1 FI E L D 3/ 2 8 / 2 0 1 2 13 . 8 8.58 280 DS C - T C 1 4/ 2 6 / 2 0 1 2 99 DS C - T C 1 FI E L D 4/ 2 6 / 2 0 1 2 10 3 8.76 243 DS C - T C 2 3/ 1 3 / 2 0 1 2 12 0 DS C - T C 2 FI E L D 3/ 1 3 / 2 0 1 2 11 2 7.51 3730 DS C - T C 2 3/ 1 6 / 2 0 1 2 44 0 DS C - T C 2 FI E L D 3/ 1 6 / 2 0 1 2 35 0 / 3 3 8 7.03 4060 DS C - T C 2 3/ 2 1 / 2 0 1 2 14 0 DS C - T C 2 FI E L D 3/ 2 1 / 2 0 1 2 27 8 / 2 8 5 7.55 687 DS C - T C 2 3/ 2 8 / 2 0 1 2 18 0 DS C - T C 2 FI E L D 3/ 2 8 / 2 0 1 2 51 8 7.86 1202 DS C - T C 2 4/ 1 2 / 2 0 1 2 57 0 DS C - T C 2 FI E L D 4/ 1 2 / 2 0 1 2 64 3 8.13 7260 DS C - T T 1 10 / 5 / 2 0 1 1 0. 3 1 0. 3 1 0. 0 1 U 1. 5 1. 8 0. 1 8 54 0 12 0 DS C - T T 1 1/ 2 0 / 2 0 1 2 0. 1 3 J 0. 0 1 8 J 2. 7 3 0. 3 7 J 13 0 0 J 60 0 DS C - T T 1 DU P 1/ 2 0 / 2 0 1 2 0. 1 2 J 0. 0 1 U J 2. 8 3. 1 0. 7 9 J 24 0 0 J 60 0 DS C - T T 1 TR I P L I C A T E 1/ 2 0 / 2 0 1 2 0. 1 1 J 0. 0 1 U J 2. 1 2. 3 0. 1 4 J 20 0 0 J 61 0 DS C - T T 1 1/ 2 6 / 2 0 1 2 0. 0 7 0. 0 1 U 1. 3 1. 4 0. 0 9 6 45 0 30 0 DS C - T T 1 3/ 1 6 / 2 0 1 2 11 0 0 DS C - T T 1 FI E L D 3/ 1 6 / 2 0 1 2 93 2 / 9 4 2 8.06 36.4 DS C - T T 1 3/ 2 8 / 2 0 1 2 15 0 0 Wa t e r Y e a r 2 0 1 2 Am m o n i a as N Di s s o l v e d Ph o s p h o r u s Ni t r a t e a n d Ni t r i t e a s N Ni t r a t e as N Ni t r i t e as N Or t h o - ph o s p h a t e To t a l Kj e l d a h l Ni t r o g e n (T K N ) To t a l Ni t r o g e n as N To t a l Ph o s p h o r u s To t a l Su s p e n d e d So l i d s Tu r b i d i t y C 1 0 - C 2 2 C 2 2 - C 3 6 C 6 - C 1 0 Total Extractable Hydrocarbons (C6-C36)pH Electrical Conductivity mg / L mg / L mg / L mg / L mg / L mg / L mg / L mg / L mg / L mg / L NT U mg / L mg / L mg / L mg/L µS St a t i o n N a m e S a m p l e T y p e Sa m p l e Co l l e c t i o n Da t e Wa t e r Y e a r 2 0 1 0 DS C - T T 1 FI E L D 3/ 2 8 / 2 0 1 2 >1 0 0 0 7.96 184.9 DS C - T T 2 3/ 1 / 2 0 1 2 48 DS C - T T 2 FI E L D 3/ 2 / 2 0 1 2 11 6 7.8 1315 DS C - T T 2 3/ 8 / 2 0 1 2 63 DS C - T T 2 FI E L D 3/ 8 / 2 0 1 2 10 6 8.1 1240 DS C - T T 2 3/ 1 3 / 2 0 1 2 65 0 DS C - T T 2 FI E L D 3/ 1 3 / 2 0 1 2 42 6 7.87 593 DS C - T T 2 3/ 1 6 / 2 0 1 2 14 0 0 DS C - T T 2 FI E L D 3/ 1 6 / 2 0 1 2 37 1 / 3 9 5 7.3 79.7 DS C - T T 2 3/ 2 8 / 2 0 1 2 26 DS C - T T 2 FI E L D 3/ 2 8 / 2 0 1 2 37 . 6 8.41 234 DS C - T T 3 3/ 1 6 / 2 0 1 2 36 0 DS C - T T 3 FI E L D 3/ 1 6 / 2 0 1 2 37 8 / 3 5 3 7.71 76.7 DS C - T T 3 3/ 2 8 / 2 0 1 2 33 0 DS C - T T 3 FI E L D 3/ 2 8 / 2 0 1 2 26 1 7.57 6790 DS C - T T 3 4/ 1 2 / 2 0 1 2 16 0 0 DS C - T T 3 FI E L D 4/ 1 2 / 2 0 1 2 >1 0 0 0 8.03 294 DS C - T T 3 4/ 2 6 / 2 0 1 2 34 0 DS C - T T 3 FI E L D 4/ 2 6 / 2 0 1 2 40 1 7.93 275 DS C - T T 3 8/ 1 4 / 2 0 1 2 80 DS C - T T 4 3/ 1 / 2 0 1 2 10 0 0 DS C - T T 4 FI E L D 3/ 1 / 2 0 1 2 >1 0 0 0 8.11 2130 DS C - T T 4 3/ 5 / 2 0 1 2 96 DS C - T T 4 FI E L D 3/ 5 / 2 0 1 2 15 1 / 1 5 5 7.57 396 DS C - T T 4 3/ 1 3 / 2 0 1 2 47 0 DS C - T T 4 FI E L D 3/ 1 3 / 2 0 1 2 98 2 7.81 1890 DS C - T T 4 3/ 1 6 / 2 0 1 2 46 0 DS C - T T 4 FI E L D 3/ 1 6 / 2 0 1 2 65 4 / 6 3 0 7.23 247 DS C - T T 4 3/ 2 1 / 2 0 1 2 50 DS C - T T 4 FI E L D 3/ 2 1 / 2 0 1 2 45 . 3 / 4 7 . 6 7.58 171.2 DS C - T T 4 3/ 2 8 / 2 0 1 2 32 0 DS C - T T 4 FI E L D 3/ 2 8 / 2 0 1 2 90 0 8.22 745 DS C - T T 5 3/ 2 / 2 0 1 2 77 0 DS C - T T 5 FI E L D 3/ 2 / 2 0 1 2 >1 0 0 0 8.27 362 DS C - T T 5 3/ 5 / 2 0 1 2 65 0 DS C - T T 5 FI E L D 3/ 5 / 2 0 1 2 70 5 / 7 0 1 7.9 104.3 DS C - T T 5 3/ 1 3 / 2 0 1 2 33 DS C - T T 5 FI E L D 3/ 1 3 / 2 0 1 2 98 . 6 8.36 118.3 DS C - T T 5 3/ 1 6 / 2 0 1 2 28 0 DS C - T T 5 FI E L D 3/ 1 6 / 2 0 1 2 26 4 / 2 4 2 7.31 95.3 DS C - T T 5 3/ 2 8 / 2 0 1 2 39 0 DS C - T T 5 FI E L D 3/ 2 8 / 2 0 1 2 27 2 8.26 107.7 Am m o n i a as N Di s s o l v e d Ph o s p h o r u s Ni t r a t e a n d Ni t r i t e a s N Ni t r a t e as N Ni t r i t e as N Or t h o - ph o s p h a t e To t a l Kj e l d a h l Ni t r o g e n (T K N ) To t a l Ni t r o g e n as N To t a l Ph o s p h o r u s To t a l Su s p e n d e d So l i d s Tu r b i d i t y C 1 0 - C 2 2 C 2 2 - C 3 6 C 6 - C 1 0 Total Extractable Hydrocarbons (C6-C36)pH Electrical Conductivity mg / L mg / L mg / L mg / L mg / L mg / L mg / L mg / L mg / L mg / L NT U mg / L mg / L mg / L mg/L µS St a t i o n N a m e S a m p l e T y p e Sa m p l e Co l l e c t i o n Da t e Wa t e r Y e a r 2 0 1 0 DS C - M C 2 11 / 1 7 / 2 0 1 2 0. 0 5 5 0. 0 9 2 2. 2 0. 0 1 U 0. 0 2 9 0. 7 8 2. 9 8 0. 1 1 1 3. 2 DS C - M C 2 11 / 2 8 / 2 0 1 2 0. 0 5 U 0. 0 8 2 0. 3 8 0. 0 1 2 0. 0 6 0. 5 0. 8 9 0. 1 1 7 5 DS C - M C 2 11 / 3 0 / 2 0 1 2 0. 0 5 U 0. 2 9 0. 1 8 0. 0 1 1 0. 2 7 0. 8 7 1. 0 6 1 0. 2 7 74 43 DS C - M C 2 12 / 5 / 2 0 1 2 0. 0 5 6 0. 0 7 0. 1 6 0. 0 5 2 0. 0 4 5 0. 1 5 0. 3 7 0. 0 9 1 3 6. 1 DS C - M C 2 3/ 2 0 / 2 0 1 3 0. 0 5 U 0. 0 3 8 0. 1 U 0. 0 1 U 0. 2 U 0. 2 U 0. 0 3 9 2 1. 5 DS C - M C 2 3/ 3 1 / 2 0 1 3 0. 0 5 U 0. 0 2 6 0. 1 U 0. 0 1 3 0. 2 U 0. 2 U 0. 0 3 2 1 0. 5 9 J DS C - M C 2 DU P 3/ 3 1 / 2 0 1 3 0. 0 5 U 0. 0 2 7 0. 1 U 0. 0 1 3 0. 2 U 0. 2 U 0. 0 3 3 1 0. 6 J DS C - M C 2 TR I P L I C A T E 3/ 3 1 / 2 0 1 3 0. 0 5 U 0. 0 2 7 0. 1 U 0. 0 1 5 0. 2 U 0. 2 U 0. 0 3 8 1 U 1 J DS C - M C 2 5/ 8 / 2 0 1 3 0. 0 5 U 0. 0 7 8 0. 1 7 0. 0 4 5 0. 3 9 0. 5 6 0. 1 1 2 2. 1 DS C - M C 3 11 / 1 7 / 2 0 1 2 0. 0 5 U 0. 0 2 8 0. 0 4 4 0. 0 1 6 0. 0 1 U 0. 8 7 0. 9 3 0. 0 5 88 55 DS C - M C 3 11 / 2 8 / 2 0 1 2 0. 0 5 U 0. 0 1 7 0. 0 2 2 0. 0 1 U 0. 0 2 8 0. 7 7 0. 7 9 0. 0 4 8 97 55 DS C - M C 3 11 / 3 0 / 2 0 1 2 0. 0 5 U 0. 0 6 3 0. 0 4 4 0. 0 1 U 0. 0 5 5 0. 5 3 0. 5 7 4 0. 0 8 7 82 89 DS C - M C 3 12 / 5 / 2 0 1 2 0. 0 5 U 0. 0 5 2 0. 0 3 0. 0 3 5 0. 0 3 0. 3 1 0. 3 7 5 0. 0 7 6 64 5. 9 DS C - M C 3 3/ 2 0 / 2 0 1 3 0. 0 5 U 0. 0 3 6 0. 1 U 0. 0 1 U 0. 2 U 0. 2 U 0. 0 3 7 1 5. 6 DS C - M C 3 3/ 3 1 / 2 0 1 3 0. 1 4 0. 0 2 1 0. 5 0. 0 2 7 J 1. 9 2. 4 0. 1 8 J 63 0 25 0 DS C - M C 3 DU P 3/ 3 1 / 2 0 1 3 0. 1 5 0. 0 2 2 0. 5 0. 0 3 6 J 1. 9 2. 4 0. 2 5 J 65 0 25 0 DS C - M C 3 TR I P L I C A T E 3/ 3 1 / 2 0 1 3 0. 1 7 0. 0 2 9 0. 5 0. 0 4 5 J 1. 9 2. 4 0. 2 9 J 66 0 28 0 DS C - M C 3 5/ 8 / 2 0 1 3 0. 1 4 0. 0 4 4 0. 2 2 0. 0 2 3 0. 8 2 1. 0 4 0. 0 6 4 17 0 95 DS C - M C 3 9/ 2 1 / 2 0 1 3 0. 2 4 0. 4 7 0. 3 7 0. 0 9 0. 4 2. 3 2. 7 6 0. 5 6 22 16 Am m o n i a as N Di s s o l v e d Am m o n i a a s N Di s s o l v e d Ph o s p h o r u s Ni t r a t e as N Ni t r i t e as N Or t h o - ph o s p h a t e To t a l Kj e l d a h l Ni t r o g e n (T K N ) To t a l Ni t r o g e n as N To t a l Ph o s p h o r u s To t a l Su s p e n d e d So l i d s Tu r b i d i t y C 1 0 - C 2 2 C 2 2 - C 3 6 C 6 - C 1 0 Total Extractable Hydrocarbons (C6-C36)pHElectrical Conductivity mg / L mg / L mg / L mg / L mg / L mg / L mg / L mg / L mg / L mg / L NT U mg / L mg / L mg / L mg/L µS DS C - M C 4 1/ 3 0 / 2 0 1 4 0. 1 1 0 . 0 3 1 0 . 4 4 0 . 0 1 U 0 . 0 1 U 0 . 4 1 0 . 8 4 0 . 2 4 3 9 3 2 DS C - M C 4 2/ 8 / 2 0 1 4 0. 0 6 3 0 . 0 5 8 0 . 0 9 0 . 0 2 8 0 . 0 2 4 1 . 1 1 . 2 0 . 2 6 6 1 0 3 1 0 DS C - M C 4 2/ 2 6 / 2 0 1 4 0. 1 0 0 . 0 1 9 0 . 0 5 6 0 . 0 3 4 0 . 0 3 7 0 . 7 7 0 . 8 6 0 . 4 7 8 9 0 2 7 0 DS C - M C 4 3/ 6 / 2 0 1 4 0. 0 7 4 0 . 0 4 1 0 . 1 9 0 . 1 6 2 . 1 2 . 4 0 . 3 5 1 6 0 0 2 5 0 DS C - M C 4 3/ 2 7 / 2 0 1 4 0. 5 9 0 . 0 2 9 0 . 2 8 0 . 1 U 0 . 0 2 1 1 . 3 1 . 6 0 . 0 9 6 1 0 0 1 2 0 DS C - M C 4 4/ 2 5 / 2 0 1 4 0. 0 5 U 0 . 0 5 8 0 . 0 4 3 0 . 0 1 U 0 . 0 4 7 0 . 3 3 0 . 3 7 0 . 0 7 7 5 0 5 4 DS C - M C 4 5/ 2 0 / 2 0 1 4 0. 2 2 0 . 1 7 0 . 5 6 0 . 0 2 4 0 . 1 1 2 . 1 2 . 6 0 . 1 9 1 6 0 1 1 0 DS C - M C 4 D U P 5/ 2 0 / 2 0 1 4 0. 2 1 0 . 1 8 0 . 5 5 0 . 0 2 5 0 . 1 1 2 . 0 2 . 5 0 . 2 0 1 7 0 9 4 DS C - M C 4 T R I P L I C A T E 5/ 2 0 / 2 0 1 4 0. 2 2 0 . 1 8 0 . 5 6 0 . 0 2 6 0 . 1 1 1 . 9 2 . 5 0 . 1 8 1 4 0 9 3 DS C - M C 4 7/ 3 1 / 2 0 1 4 2. 3 0 . 1 8 0 . 9 5 0 . 0 1 U 0 . 1 3 8 . 6 9 . 6 0 . 1 5 8 4 0 3 3 0 DS C - M C 5 1/ 3 0 / 2 0 1 4 0. 1 U 0 . 0 1 U 0 . 4 0 0 . 0 1 U 0 . 0 1 U 0 . 2 U 0 . 4 0 . 1 4 4 5 . 4 DS C - M C 5 2/ 8 / 2 0 1 4 0. 0 5 U 0 . 0 3 0 0 . 2 5 0 . 0 1 9 0 . 0 1 U 0 . 5 6 0 . 8 3 0 . 0 6 2 1 3 0 5 0 DS C - M C 5 2/ 2 6 / 2 0 1 4 0. 0 5 U 0 . 0 1 2 0 . 1 5 0 . 0 1 U 0 . 1 2 0 . 3 8 0 . 5 3 0 . 0 6 5 5 6 2 DS C - M C 5 3/ 6 / 2 0 1 4 0. 0 6 1 0 . 0 1 1 0 . 1 4 0 . 1 2 1 . 2 1 . 5 0 . 1 2 2 2 0 8 8 DS C - M C 5 3/ 2 7 / 2 0 1 4 0. 0 5 U 0 . 0 1 5 0 . 1 U 0 . 0 5 U 0 . 0 1 U 0 . 2 U 0 . 3 5 U 0 . 0 1 5 2 3 . 7 DS C - M C 5 4/ 2 5 / 2 0 1 4 0. 0 5 U 0 . 0 1 5 0 . 0 5 9 0 . 0 1 U 0 . 0 1 U 0 . 1 2 0 . 1 8 0 . 0 3 1 5 9 . 1 DS C - M C 5 5/ 2 0 / 2 0 1 4 0. 0 5 U 0 . 0 2 8 0 . 0 6 4 0 . 0 1 U 0 . 0 1 U 0 . 3 5 0 . 4 1 0 . 0 8 6 3 8 3 3 DS C - M C 5 7/ 3 1 / 2 0 1 4 0. 0 5 8 0 . 0 1 U 0 . 3 9 0 . 0 1 6 0 . 0 1 U 1 . 4 1 . 8 0 . 0 5 1 2 0 1 2 0 No t e s : U = n o t d e t e c t e d a t c o n c e n t r a t i o n i n d i c a t e d J = e s t i m a t e d v a l u e d u e t o p r e c i s i o n i s s u e Fi e l d p a r a m e t e r s w e r e n o t c o l l e c t e d p r i o r t o 3 / 1 / 1 2 e v e n t . Wa t e r Y e a r 2 0 1 4 Wa t e r Y e a r 2 0 1 3 St a t i o n N a m e S a m p l e T y p e Sa m p l e Co l l e c t i o n Da t e Tributary Level Event Tallies and Analytical Data St a t i o n I D DS T - M C 1 D S T - M C 2 D S T - M C 3 D S T - M C 4 D S T - M C 5 D S T - M C 6 Da t e / E v e n t T y p e 12 / 1 4 / 2 0 1 0 M i x WQ ( C 1 ) W Q ( C 1 ) W Q ( C 1 ) W Q ( C 1 ) W Q ( C 1 ) W Q ( C 1 ) Th e s t o r m b e g a n a s r a i n d u r i n g t h e e a r l y m o r n i n g h o u r s o n 1 2 / 1 4 / 2 0 1 0 . S a m p l e s su c c e s s f u l l y c o l l e c t e d d u r i n g r i s i n g l i m b o f s t o r m b e t w e e n 0 9 : 0 0 a n d 1 1 : 4 0 o n 1 2 / 1 4 / 2 0 1 0 . La t e r i n t h e a f t e r n o o n , t e m p s d r o p p e d a n d p r e c i p b e c a m e s p o t t y a n d c h a n g e d t o s n o w . 12 / 1 8 / 2 0 1 0 M i x WQ ( C 1 ) W Q ( C 1 ) W Q ( C 1 ) W Q ( C 1 ) W Q ( C 1 ) 2 WQ ( C 1 ) La r g e S t o r m b e g a n a s s n o w d u r i n g t h e a f t e r n o o n o f 1 2 / 1 7 / 2 0 1 0 , a n d c h a n g e d t o r a i n ov e r n i g h t . S a m p l e s w e r e s u c c e s s f u l l y c o l l e c t e d d u r i n g r i s i n g l i m b o f s t o r m b e t w e e n 0 9 : 3 0 an d 1 1 : 4 0 o n t h e m o r n i n g o f 1 2 / 1 8 / 1 0 , b e f o r e t h e s t o r m c h a n g e d b a c k t o s n o w ( e a r l y af t e r n o o n ) . F l o w r a t e s a t s i t e D S T - M C 1 w e r e t o o h i g h t o w a d e t h e e n t i r e t r a n s e c t . 3/ 1 5 / 2 0 1 1 M i x WQ ( C 1 ) W Q ( C 1 ) W Q ( C 1 ) W Q ( C 1 ) W Q ( C 1 ) W Q ( C 1 ) La r g e S t o r m b e g a n d u r i n g t h e m o r n i n g o f 3 / 1 5 / 2 0 1 0 , a n d c h a n g e d t o s n o w o v e r n i g h t . Sa m p l e s w e r e s u c c e s s f u l l y c o l l e c t e d d u r i n g r i s i n g l i m b o f s t o r m b e t w e e n 1 6 : 2 0 a n d 1 9 : 0 0 o n th e a f t e r n o o n o f 3 / 1 5 / 2 0 1 1 , b e f o r e t h e s t o r m c h a n g e d t o s n o w ( l a t e e v e n i n g ) . F l o w r a t e s a t si t e D S T - M C 1 w e r e t o o h i g h t o w a d e t h e e n t i r e t r a n s e c t . 4/ 1 / 1 1 S n o w m e l t WQ ( C 1 ) W Q ( C 1 ) W Q ( C 1 ) W Q ( C 1 ) W Q ( C 1 ) W Q ( C 1 ) Sn o w m e l t e v e n t . A p r i l 1 , 2 0 1 1 w a s c h o s e n t o c o l l e c t s a m p l e s b a s e d o n t h e p r e v i o u s d a y s ' sn o w m e l t c y c l e r e c o r d e d a t t h e M a r t i s C r e e k g a u g i n g s t a t i o n a n d p r e d i c t e d h i g h te m p e r a t u r e s o n A p r i l 1 . O n A p r i l 1 t h e g a u g i n g s t a t i o n r e c o r d e d a 0 . 4 5 f t . r i s e f r o m 0 8 : 1 5 t o 20 : 4 5 . R i s i n g l i m b w a s s u c c e s s f u l l y s a m p l e d . P o s t e v e n t d a t a r e v i e w s h o w e d t h a t A p r i l 2 , 20 1 1 w a s t h e p e a k s n o w m e l t d a y d u r i n g t h i s e a r l y s p r i n g s n o w m e l t c y c l e a s a n u n c o m m o n l y wa r m l o w t e m p e r a t u r e ( 4 5 F ) m a y h a v e b e e n a f a c t o r i n t h e l a r g e r r i s e ( 0 . 6 f t ) . T h e h i g h te m p e r a t u r e o n A p r i l 1 w a s 6 8 F , t h e h i g h t e m p e r a t u r e o n A p r i l 2 w a s 5 3 F . F l o w r a t e s a t s i t e DS T - M C 1 w e r e t o o h i g h t o w a d e t h e e n t i r e t r a n s e c t . F l o w a t P l a c e r C o u n t y M a r t i s C r e e k st r e a m g a u g e s h o w s < 2 0 % i n c r e a s e o v e r w i n t e r b a s e f l o w . 5/ 5 / 2 0 1 1 S n o w m e l t WQ ( C 1 ) W Q ( C 1 ) W Q ( C 1 ) W Q ( C 1 ) W Q ( C 1 ) W Q ( C 1 ) Sn o w m e l t e v e n t . M a y 5 , 2 0 1 1 w a s c h o s e n t o c o l l e c t s a m p l e s b a s e d o n t h e p r e v i o u s d a y s ' sn o w m e l t c y c l e r e c o r d e d a t t h e M a r t i s C r e e k g a u g i n g s t a t i o n a n d p r e d i c t e d h i g h te m p e r a t u r e s o n M a y 5 . O n M a y 5 t h e g a u g i n g s t a t i o n r e c o r d e d a 0 . 2 8 f t . r i s e f r o m 1 4 : 1 5 t o 23 : 1 5 . R i s i n g l i m b w a s s u c c e s s f u l l y s a m p l e d . Th e h i g h t e m p e r a t u r e o n M a y 5 w a s 6 5 F . Fl o w r a t e s a t s i t e D S T - M C 1 w e r e t o o h i g h t o w a d e t h e e n t i r e t r a n s e c t . 6/ 6 / 2 0 1 1 M i x WQ ( C 1 ) W Q ( C 1 ) W Q ( C 1 ) W Q ( C 1 ) W Q ( C 1 ) W Q ( C 1 ) Mi x E v e n t b e g a n d u r i n g t h e e v e n i n g o f 6 / 6 / 2 0 1 1 a n d c h a n g e d t o s n o w o v e r n i g h t . S a m p l e s we r e s u c c e s s f u l l y c o l l e c t e d d u r i n g h i g h f l o w b e t w e e n 0 8 3 0 a n d 1 0 4 0 o n t h e m o r n i n g o f 6/ 6 / 2 0 1 1 . F l o w r a t e s a t s i t e D S T - M C 1 w e r e t o o h i g h t o w a d e t h e e n t i r e t r a n s e c t . 6/ 2 9 / 2 0 1 1 R a i n WQ ( C 1 ) W Q ( C 1 ) W Q ( C 1 ) W Q ( C 1 ) W Q ( C 1 ) W Q ( C 1 ) Ra i n E v e n t b e g a n d u r i n g t h e l a t e e v e n i n g o f 6 / 2 8 / 2 0 1 1 a n d c o n t i n u e d u n t i l a p p r o x i m a t e l y 7A M o n 6 / 2 9 / 2 0 1 1 . S a m p l e s w e r e s u c c e s s f u l l y c o l l e c t e d d u r i n g h i g h f l o w b e t w e e n 0 6 3 0 a n d 08 4 0 o n t h e m o r n i n g o f 6 / 2 9 / 2 0 1 1 . F l o w r a t e s a t s i t e D S T - M C 1 w e r e t o o h i g h t o w a d e t h e en t i r e t r a n s e c t . WY 2 0 1 1 P l a c e r C o u n t y T r i b u t a r y L e v e l M o n i t o r i n g Ma r t i s C r e e k No t e s St a t i o n I D DS T - M C 1 D S T - M C 2 D S T - M C 3 D S T - M C 4 D S T - M C 5 D S T - M C 6 Da t e / E v e n t T y p e 1/ 2 1 / 1 2 M i x WQ ( C 1 ) W Q ( C 1 ) W Q ( C 1 ) W Q ( C 1 ) W Q ( C 1 ) W Q ( C 1 ) Lo w f l o w a t D S T - M C 6 3/ 1 4 / 1 2 M i x WQ ( C 1 ) W Q ( C 1 ) W Q ( C 1 ) W Q ( C 1 ) W Q ( C 1 ) W Q ( C 1 ) Lo w f l o w a t D S T - M C 6 ; L i g h t m i x e v e n t ; 3/ 1 6 / 2 0 1 2 M i x WQ ( C 1 ) W Q ( C 1 ) W Q ( C 1 ) W Q ( C 1 ) W Q ( C 1 ) W Q ( C 1 ) 3/ 2 1 / 2 0 1 2 S n o w m e l t WQ ( C 1 ) W Q ( C 1 ) W Q ( C 1 ) W Q ( C 1 ) W Q ( C 1 ) W Q ( C 1 ) 4/ 2 0 / 1 2 S n o w m e l t WQ ( C 1 ) W Q ( C 1 ) W Q ( C 1 ) W Q ( C 1 ) W Q ( C 1 ) W Q ( C 1 ) Lo w f l o w @ M C 6 . 4/ 2 3 / 1 2 S n o w m e l t WQ ( C 1 ) W Q ( C 1 ) W Q ( C 1 ) W Q ( C 1 ) W Q ( C 1 ) W Q ( C 1 ) Lo w f l o w @ M C 6 . 4/ 2 6 / 1 2 S p r i n g R a i n WQ ( C 1 ) W Q ( C 1 ) W Q ( C 1 ) W Q ( C 1 ) W Q ( C 1 ) W Q ( C 1 ) Tu r b i d f l o w s . WY 2 0 1 2 P l a c e r C o u n t y T r i b u t a r y L e v e l M o n i t o r i n g Ma r t i s C r e e k No t e s St a t i o n I D DS T - M C 1 D S T - M C 2 D S T - M C 3 D S T - M C 4 D S T - M C 5 D S T - M C 6 Da t e / E v e n t T y p e 11 / 1 7 / 1 2 M i x e d W Q ( C 1 ) W Q ( C 1 ) W Q ( C 1 ) W Q ( C 1 ) W Q ( C 1 ) NO FL O W Mi x e d e v e n t . ( R a i n o c c u r r i n g d u r i n g s a m p l i n g ) N o f l o w o c c u r r i n g a t D S T M C 6 . B e a v e r d a m ha s b e e n c o n s t r u c t e d ~ 1 0 f t d o w n s t r e a m o f D S T M C 1 . S u f f i c i e n t f l o w s t i l l o c c u r r i n g t h e r e f o r sa m p l i n g e f f o r t s . V i s u a l o b s e r v a t i o n o f h i g h e r t h a n n o r m a l t u r b i d i t y a n d s l i g h t a m b e r c o l o r i n g of f l o w a t D S T M C 4 . 11 / 3 0 / 1 2 M i x e d W Q ( C 1 ) W Q ( C 1 ) W Q ( C 1 ) W Q ( C 1 ) W Q ( C 1 ) W Q ( C 1 ) Mo s t l y r a i n , w i t h s l i g h t a m o u n t s o f s n o w t o w a r d s t h e e n d o f t h e e v e n t . F l o w a t D S T M C 1 t o o hi g h f o r a c o m p l e t e c r o s s i n g . H a l f t h e c h a n n e l w a s s a m p l e d . 12 / 5 / 1 2 R a i n W Q ( C 1 ) W Q ( C 1 ) W Q ( C 1 ) W Q ( C 1 ) W Q ( C 1 ) W Q ( C 1 ) Ra i n o v e r n i g h t , t a p e r i n g w h i l e s a m p l e s w e r e b e i n g c o l l e c t e d . F l o w a t D S T M C 1 t o o h i g h f o r a co m p l e t e c r o s s i n g . H a l f t h e c h a n n e l w a s s a m p l e d . F l o w s a t a l l s i t e s ( e x c e p t M C 5 ) e v e n hi g h e r t h a n 1 1 / 3 0 e v e n t . G r o u n d w a t e r s e e m s t o b e f l o w i n g a t M C 6 . 12 / 1 7 / 1 2 M i x e d W Q ( C 1 ) W Q ( C 1 ) W Q ( C 1 ) W Q ( C 1 ) W Q ( C 1 ) W Q ( C 1 ) S l u s h y s n o w o v e r n i g h t , c o n t i n u i n g i n t o t h e m o r n i n g . 3/ 1 3 / 1 3 S n o w m e l t W Q ( C 1 ) W Q ( C 1 ) W Q ( C 1 ) W Q ( C 1 ) W Q ( C 1 ) W Q ( C 1 ) S n o w m e l t f r o m w a r m d a y t i m e t e m p e r a t u r e s o n e x i s t i n g s n o w p a c k . 3/ 2 0 / 1 3 M i x e d W Q ( C 1 ) W Q ( C 1 ) W Q ( C 1 ) W Q ( C 1 ) W Q ( C 1 ) W Q ( C 1 ) Mi x e d e v e n t o v e r n i g h t i n t o t h e m o r n i n g h o u r s , t a p e r i n g o f f b y e a r l y a f t e r n o o n . M o s t i n t e n s e pe r i o d o f p r e c i p f r o m 4 - 6 a m . 3/ 3 1 / 1 3 M i x e d W Q ( C 1 ) W Q ( C 1 ) W Q ( C 1 ) W Q ( C 1 ) W Q ( C 1 ) W Q ( C 1 ) Mi x e d e v e n t f r o m t h e e a r l y m o r n i n g h o u r s , t a p e r i n g o f f b y l a t e m o r n i n g . M o s t i n t e n s e p e r i o d of p r e c i p f r o m 4 - 6 a m . 4/ 2 6 / 1 3 S n o w m e l t W Q ( C 1 ) W Q ( C 1 ) W Q ( C 1 ) W Q ( C 1 ) W Q ( C 1 ) W Q ( C 1 ) S n o w m e l t f r o m w a r m d a y t i m e t e m p e r a t u r e s o n e x i s t i n g s n o w p a c k . 5/ 7 / 1 3 R a i n W Q ( C 1 ) W Q ( C 1 ) W Q ( C 1 ) W Q ( C 1 ) W Q ( C 1 ) W Q ( C 1 ) H e a v y r a i n o v e r n i g h t t o e a r l y m o r n i n g . L i g h t s h o w e r s t h r o u g h t h e d a y . WY 2 0 1 3 P l a c e r C o u n t y T r i b u t a r y L e v e l M o n i t o r i n g Ma r t i s C r e e k No t e s St a t i o n I D DS T - M C 1 D S T - M C 2 D S T - M C 3 D S T - M C 4 D S T - M C 5 D S T - M C 6 Da t e 1/ 3 0 / 2 0 1 4 WQ ( C 1 ) W Q ( C 1 ) W Q ( C 1 ) W Q ( C 1 ) W Q ( C 1 ) NO FL O W Mi x e d e v e n t . ( S n o w o c c u r r i n g d u r i n g s a m p l i n g ) N o f l o w o c c u r r i n g a t D S T M C 6 . D S T - M C 4 an d D S T - M C 5 h a v e b e e n r e l o c a t e d f o r b e t t e r c h a n n e l r e p r e s e n t a t i o n a n d b e a v e r d a m is s u e s . I c e c o v e r i n g h a l f o f s t r e a m c h a n n e l a t D S T - M C 1 , s o o n l y h a l f o f c h a n n e l s a m p l e d . Ic e o n b o t t o m o f c h a n n e l a t D S T - M C 3 , F i r s t f l o w o f s e a s o n f r o m m i d d l e m a r t i s ( D S T - M C 3 ) 2/ 9 / 2 0 1 4 WQ ( C 1 ) W Q ( C 1 ) W Q ( C 1 ) W Q ( C 1 ) W Q ( C 1 ) W Q ( C 1 ) Mi x e d e v e n t . S n o w L e v e l a b o v e 6 5 0 0 f t t h r o u g h o u t e v e n t . D S T - M C 4 a n d D S T - M C 5 h a v e be e n r e l o c a t e d f o r b e t t e r c h a n n e l r e p r e s e n t a t i o n a n d b e a v e r d a m i s s u e s . S a m p l e s w e r e co l l e c t e d a t o n l y h a l f t h e c h a n n e l a t D S T - M C 1 d u e t o h i g h f l o w s . F l o w s w e r e a t b a n k f u l l co n d i t i o n a n d f l o w i n g o n t o t h e s u r r o u n d i n g t e r r a c e s . 2/ 2 7 / 2 0 1 4 WQ ( C 1 ) W Q ( C 1 ) W Q ( C 1 ) W Q ( C 1 ) W Q ( C 1 ) W Q ( C 1 ) Mi x e d e v e n t . S n o w L e v e l a b o v e 6 5 0 0 f t t h r o u g h o u t e v e n t . D S T - M C 4 a n d D S T - M C 5 h a v e be e n r e l o c a t e d f o r b e t t e r c h a n n e l r e p r e s e n t a t i o n a n d b e a v e r d a m i s s u e s . 3/ 2 9 / 2 0 1 4 WQ ( C 1 ) W Q ( C 1 ) W Q ( C 1 ) W Q ( C 1 ) W Q ( C 1 ) W Q ( C 1 ) Mi x e d e v e n t . S n o w l e v e l s t a r t e d a b o v e 7 0 0 0 f t a n d d r o p p e d t o 5 0 0 0 f t b y t h e e n d o f t h e ev e n t . 4/ 8 / 2 0 1 4 WQ ( C 1 ) W Q ( C 1 ) W Q ( C 1 ) W Q ( C 1 ) W Q ( C 1 ) NO FL O W Sn o w m e l t e v e n t . S e v e r a l d a y s o f a b o v e a v e r a g e t e m p e r a t u r e s c a u s e d a d i u r n a l s n o w m e l t cy c l e t o c c u r . S a m p l e s t a k e n o n r i s i n g l i m b . N o f l o w a t D S T M C 6 . 5/ 2 0 / 2 0 1 4 WQ ( C 1 ) W Q ( C 1 ) W Q ( C 1 ) W Q ( C 1 ) W Q ( C 1 ) NO FL O W Ra i n E v e n t . S a m p l e s c o l l e c t e d m i d a f t e r n o o n d u r i n g t h e r i s i n g l i m b . N o f l o w a t D S T - M C 6 . 7/ 2 1 / 2 0 1 4 WQ ( C 1 ) W Q ( C 1 ) NO FL O W WQ ( C 1 ) W Q ( C 1 ) NO FL O W Ra i n / T s t o r m e v e n t . M o n s o o n a l m o i s t u r e c a u s e d l i g h t t o m o d e r a t e r a i n f r o m a f t e r n o o n o f 7/ 2 0 t h r o u g h e a r l y a m o f 7 / 2 1 . 8/ 4 / 2 0 1 4 WQ ( C 1 ) W Q ( C 1 ) NO FL O W WQ ( C 1 ) W Q ( C 1 ) NO FL O W Ra i n E v e n t . E x t e n d e d o v e r c a s t p e r i o d f r o m S u n d a y 8 / 3 t h r o u g h T u e s d a y 8 / 5 , w i t h c o n s i s t a n t , li g h t r a i n f r o m M o n d a y m o r n i n g 8 / 4 , t h r o u g h e a r l y m o r n i n g 8 / 5 . Ma r t i s C r e e k No t e s WY 2 0 1 4 P l a c e r C o u n t y T r i b u t a r y L e v e l M o n i t o r i n g StationName Sample Type Sample Collection Date Ammonia as N Dissolved Phosphorus Nitrate and Nitrite as N Nitrate as N Nitrite as N Ortho- phosphate Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) Total Nitrogen as N Total Phosphorus Total Suspended Solids Turbidity µg/L µg/L µg/L mg/L mg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L mg/L NTU DST-MC1 12/14/2010 5 34 205 18 999 1204 186 82.24 37.2 DST-MC1 12/14/2010 5 34 205 18 999 1204 186 82.24 37.2 DST-MC1 12/18/2010 3 41 215 28 534 749 103 28 15.5 DST-MC1 12/18/2010 3 41 215 28 534 749 103 28 15.5 DST-MC1 3/15/2011 4 24 88 18 376 464 94 37 19.3 DST-MC1 3/15/2011 4 24 88 18 376 464 94 37 19.3 DST-MC1 4/1/2011 3 21 15 12 231 246 45 12 6.75 DST-MC1 4/1/2011 3 21 15 12 231 246 45 12 6.75 DST-MC1 5/5/2011 1 26 4 19 219 223 47 6 7.25 DST-MC1 5/5/2011 1 26 4 19 219 223 47 6 7.25 DST-MC1 6/6/2011 5 33 10 22 274 284 67 16.5 11.2 DST-MC1 6/6/2011 5 33 10 22 274 284 67 16.5 11.2 DST-MC1 6/29/2011 4 33 7 20 275 282 51 4.8 3.2 DST-MC1 6/29/2011 4 33 7 20 275 282 51 4.8 3.2 DST-MC2 12/14/2010 3 32 7 14 319 326 63 19.23 11.2 DST-MC2 12/14/2010 3 32 7 14 319 326 63 19.23 11.2 DST-MC2 12/18/2010 4 33 13 13 233 246 50 12 11.2 DST-MC2 12/18/2010 4 33 13 13 233 246 50 12 11.2 DST-MC2 3/15/2011 4 27 48 23 475 523 83 32 14.5 DST-MC2 3/15/2011 4 27 48 23 475 523 83 32 14.5 DST-MC2 4/1/2011 2 25 6 14 202 208 48 12.67 9.95 DST-MC2 4/1/2011 2 25 6 14 202 208 48 12.67 9.95 DST-MC2 5/5/2011 1 72 6 61 446 452 152 34 18 DST-MC2 5/5/2011 1 72 6 61 446 452 152 34 18 DST-MC2 6/6/2011 4 30 8 17 192 200 50 13 10.3 DST-MC2 6/6/2011 4 30 8 17 192 200 50 13 10.3 DST-MC2 6/29/2011 3 33 2 22 309 311 56 11.2 6.5 DST-MC2 6/29/2011 3 33 2 22 309 311 56 11.2 6.5 DST-MC3 12/14/2010 10 52 29 34 872 901 154 60 27.25 DST-MC3 12/14/2010 10 52 29 34 872 901 154 60 27.25 DST-MC3 12/18/2010 4 44 42 27 383 425 76 21 12.45 DST-MC3 12/18/2010 4 44 42 27 383 425 76 21 12.45 DST-MC3 3/15/2011 6 33 48 26 377 425 100 25.61 12.4 DST-MC3 3/15/2011 6 33 48 26 377 425 100 25.61 12.4 DST-MC3 4/1/2011 2 27 3 18 220 223 58 12.67 9.5 DST-MC3 4/1/2011 2 27 3 18 220 223 58 12.67 9.5 DST-MC3 5/5/2011 2 35 5 28 218 223 68 14 10.25 DST-MC3 5/5/2011 2 35 5 28 218 223 68 14 10.25 DST-MC3 6/6/2011 5 35 7 24 302 309 73 13.5 14.6 DST-MC3 6/6/2011 5 35 7 24 302 309 73 13.5 14.6 DST-MC3 6/29/2011 2 40 3 31 337 340 68 8.4 7.75 DST-MC3 6/29/2011 2 40 3 31 337 340 68 8.4 7.75 DST-MC4 12/14/2010 5 48 133 31 651 784 127 35.19 22.2 DST-MC4 12/14/2010 5 48 133 31 651 784 127 35.19 22.2 DST-MC4 12/18/2010 3 31 83 20 394 477 64 14 8.75 DST-MC4 12/18/2010 3 31 83 20 394 477 64 14 8.75 DST-MC4 3/15/2011 3 23 102 16 296 398 64 24 10.1 DST-MC4 3/15/2011 3 23 102 16 296 398 64 24 10.1 DST-MC4 4/1/2011 1 18 37 9 241 278 47 11 6.25 DST-MC4 4/1/2011 1 18 37 9 241 278 47 11 6.25 DST-MC4 5/5/2011 1 17 16 4 333 349 52 16 5.5 DST-MC4 5/5/2011 1 17 16 4 333 349 52 16 5.5 DST-MC4 6/6/2011 4 23 61 11 329 390 59 14.5 10.1 DST-MC4 6/6/2011 4 23 61 11 329 390 59 14.5 10.1 DST-MC4 6/29/2011 1 18 80 12 391 471 50 8.4 1.85 DST-MC4 6/29/2011 1 18 80 12 391 471 50 8.4 1.85 DST-MC5 12/14/2010 4 41 99 21 515 614 114 37.5 23.5 DST-MC5 12/14/2010 4 41 99 21 515 614 114 37.5 23.5 DST-MC5 12/18/2010 3 43 196 32 503 699 96 22 12.5 DST-MC5 12/18/2010 3 43 196 32 503 699 96 22 12.5 DST-MC5 3/15/2011 3 28 90 20 305 395 57 17.07 9.95 DST-MC5 DUP 3/15/2011 3 27 87 20 301 388 57 17.07 9.9 DST-MC5 TRIPLICATE 3/15/2011 4 28 89 20 310 399 59 17.5 10 DST-MC5 3/15/2011 3 28 90 20 305 395 57 17.07 9.95 DST-MC5 DUP 3/15/2011 3 27 87 20 301 388 57 17.07 9.9 DST-MC5 TRIPLICATE 3/15/2011 4 28 89 20 310 399 59 17.5 10 DST-MC5 4/1/2011 1 21 15 12 174 189 35 4.5 3.1 DST-MC5 4/1/2011 1 21 15 12 174 189 35 4.5 3.1 DST-MC5 5/5/2011 3 22 5 16 149 154 35 3.5 4.1 DST-MC5 5/5/2011 3 22 5 16 149 154 35 3.5 4.1 DST-MC5 6/6/2011 3 33 9 18 245 254 48 6.5 7.5 DST-MC5 6/6/2011 3 33 9 18 245 254 48 6.5 7.5 DST-MC5 6/29/2011 2 31 7 21 243 250 48 4.4 3.1 DST-MC5 6/29/2011 2 31 7 21 243 250 48 4.4 3.1 DST-MC6 12/14/2010 6 31 246 10 645 891 104 33.85 25.25 DST-MC6 12/14/2010 6 31 246 10 645 891 104 33.85 25.25 DST-MC6 12/18/2010 5 30 268 15 426 694 59 12 10.75 DST-MC6 12/18/2010 5 30 268 15 426 694 59 12 10.75 DST-MC6 3/15/2011 3 13 126 8 281 407 42 14.63 7.5 DST-MC6 3/15/2011 3 13 126 8 281 407 42 14.63 7.5 DST-MC6 4/1/2011 6 14 16 5 188 204 34 5.2 3.5 DST-MC6 4/1/2011 6 14 16 5 188 204 34 5.2 3.5 DST-MC6 5/5/2011 4 25 4 9 403 407 40 2.5 3.25 DST-MC6 5/5/2011 4 25 4 9 403 407 40 2.5 3.25 DST-MC6 6/6/2011 3 31 7 19 445 452 76 16.5 9.95 DST-MC6 6/6/2011 3 31 7 19 445 452 76 16.5 9.95 DST-MC6 6/29/2011 2 30 2 21 717 719 93 11.6 6.5 DST-MC6 6/29/2011 2 30 2 21 717 719 93 11.6 6.5 Water Year 2011 StationName Sample Type Sample Collection Date Ammonia as N Dissolved Phosphorus Nitrate and Nitrite as N Nitrate as N Nitrite as N Ortho- phosphate Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) Total Nitrogen as N Total Phosphorus Total Suspended Solids Turbidity µg/L µg/L µg/L mg/L mg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L mg/L NTU Water Year 2011 DST-MC1 1/21/2012 6 153 435 121 1152 1587 244 30.56 13.45 DST-MC1 3/14/2012 2 39 18 27 574 592 66 15.33 5.75 DST-MC1 3/16/2012 33 24 15.4 DST-MC1 3/21/2012 5 33 25 14 486 511 49 6 4.75 DST-MC1 4/20/2012 5 32 7 11 222 229 44 5.6 3.5 DST-MC1 4/23/2012 33 8 5.25 DST-MC1 4/26/2012 3 36 25 14 451 476 57 16.4 7.6 DST-MC2 1/21/2012 4 65 183 45 443 626 101 13.33 10.5 DST-MC2 3/14/2012 1 34 2 22 572 574 57 3.6 2.1 DST-MC2 3/16/2012 2 37 14 16 658 672 60 10.89 5.15 DST-MC2 3/21/2012 2 30 4 12 215 219 44 5.5 2.25 DST-MC2 4/20/2012 6 45 3 13 237 240 55 7.2 4.25 DST-MC2 4/23/2012 4 28 3 12 475 478 45 8.5 5.15 DST-MC2 4/26/2012 3 37 6 16 753 759 82 46.5 9.95 DST-MC3 1/21/2012 3 200 302 181 968 1270 255 20 10.45 DST-MC3 3/14/2012 2 28 2 20 602 604 55 6.67 2.75 DST-MC3 3/16/2012 3 36 41 22 558 599 78 16 8.05 DST-MC3 3/21/2012 5 32 4 16 432 436 47 4 2.05 DST-MC3 4/20/2012 4 62 1 17 211 212 77 4.4 1.75 DST-MC3 4/23/2012 3 31 2 13 230 232 54 6.5 3.5 DST-MC3 4/26/2012 7 44 3 21 347 350 61 9 7.25 DST-MC4 1/21/2012 6 108 661 67 682 1343 142 16.22 10.25 DST-MC4 3/14/2012 6 37 45 26 678 723 90 28.67 8.2 DST-MC4 3/16/2012 15 18 242 7 542 784 68 17 7.65 DST-MC4 3/21/2012 6 24 78 11 283 361 41 8.5 3.55 DST-MC4 4/20/2012 5 31 109 6 286 395 47 7.2 3.75 DST-MC4 4/23/2012 5 23 100 8 765 865 98 38.5 10.1 DST-MC4 4/26/2012 4 100 102 62 402 504 143 18 7.8 DST-MC5 1/21/2012 6 167 361 138 1189 1550 214 19.44 10.65 DST-MC5 3/14/2012 2 58 5 49 633 638 89 14 5.5 DST-MC5 3/16/2012 2 43 86 31 660 746 103 29.41 9.9 DST-MC5 DUP 3/16/2012 1 43 85 31 654 739 102 29 9.95 DST-MC5 TRIPLICATE 3/16/2012 1 45 85 30 658 743 101 29 9.95 DST-MC5 3/21/2012 8 34 37 21 342 379 58 7.66 5.15 DST-MC5 4/20/2012 6 37 20 16 193 213 53 6.4 3.25 DST-MC5 4/23/2012 5 27 53 12 257 310 77 10.5 6.1 DST-MC5 4/26/2012 4 603 48 222 535 583 665 24.5 8.5 DST-MC6 1/21/2012 179 112 419 78 1845 2264 122 8.33 2.25 DST-MC6 3/14/2012 3 54 58 25 490 548 68 7.2 2.5 DST-MC6 3/16/2012 3 40 197 14 544 741 78 14 8 DST-MC6 3/21/2012 5 27 36 11 588 624 42 6.5 4.3 DST-MC6 4/20/2012 5 32 3 9 507 510 52 4 1.8 DST-MC6 4/23/2012 3 25 4 8 669 673 45 8 2.5 DST-MC6 4/26/2012 5 38 4 9 600 604 50 4.95 2.35 Water Year 2012 StationName Sample Type Sample Collection Date Ammonia as N Dissolved Phosphorus Nitrate and Nitrite as N Nitrate as N Nitrite as N Ortho- phosphate Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) Total Nitrogen as N Total Phosphorus Total Suspended Solids Turbidity µg/L µg/L µg/L mg/L mg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L mg/L NTU Water Year 2011 DST-MC1 11/17/2012 0.05 U 0.033 0.01 U 0.01 U 0.01 U 0.46 0.46 0.056 10 7.5 DST-MC1 11/30/2012 0.05 U 0.083 0.18 0.01 U 0.074 1 1.18 0.1 82 54 DST-MC1 12/5/2012 0.05 U 0.049 0.15 0.044 0.14 0.48 0.674 0.075 4 16 DST-MC1 12/17/2012 0.05 U 0.022 0.089 0.01 U 0.011 0.29 0.379 0.043 4 8.3 DST-MC1 3/13/2013 0.05 U 0.021 0.01 U 0.01 U 0.01 0.21 0.21 0.03 2 3.4 DST-MC1 3/20/2013 0.05 U 0.02 0.01 U 0.025 U 0.01 U 0.2 U 0.2 0.022 2 5.7 DST-MC1 3/31/2013 0.05 U 0.024 0.013 0.01 U 0.01 U 0.22 0.233 0.15 3 5 DST-MC1 4/26/2013 0.05 U 0.028 0.02 U 0.02 U 0.01 0.2 U 0.2 U 0.036 2 2.5 DST-MC1 5/7/2013 0.05 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.014 0.25 0.25 0.04 3 4.7 DST-MC2 11/17/2012 0.05 U 0.04 0.01 U 0.01 U 0.01 U 0.31 0.31 0.064 11 7.8 DST-MC2 11/30/2012 0.05 U 0.058 0.26 0.01 U 0.04 0.84 1.1 0.082 26 27 DST-MC2 12/5/2012 0.05 U 0.038 0.051 0.046 0.017 0.4 0.497 0.044 2 15 DST-MC2 12/17/2012 0.051 0.018 0.01 U 0.01 U 0.012 0.2 0.2 0.041 1 U 4.2 DST-MC2 3/13/2013 0.05 U 0.015 0.01 U 0.01 U 0.024 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.023 2 3.3 DST-MC2 3/20/2013 0.05 U 0.023 0.01 U 0.025 U 0.01 U 0.2 U 0.2 U 0.032 1 8.3 DST-MC2 3/31/2013 0.05 U 0.022 0.013 0.01 U 0.011 0.2 0.213 0.037 4 8.3 DST-MC2 4/26/2013 0.05 U 0.031 0.02 U 0.02 U 0.02 0.2 U 0.2 U 0.032 3 3.8 DST-MC2 5/7/2013 0.05 U 0.03 0.1 U 0.018 0.26 0.26 0.037 7 7.6 DST-MC3 11/17/2012 0.05 U 0.064 0.01 U 0.01 U 0.031 0.34 0.34 0.11 1 U 3.6 DST-MC3 11/30/2012 0.05 U 0.11 0.14 0.01 U 0.089 0.6 0.74 0.11 10 26 DST-MC3 12/5/2012 0.05 U 0.056 0.037 0.043 0.037 0.28 0.36 0.11 1 19 DST-MC3 12/17/2012 0.05 U 0.021 0.031 0.01 U 0.018 0.33 0.361 0.044 1 3.8 DST-MC3 3/13/2013 0.05 U 0.016 0.01 U 0.01 U 0.017 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.029 1 U 3 DST-MC3 3/20/2013 0.05 U 0.026 0.01 U 0.025 U 0.01 U 0.2 U 0.2 U 0.035 1 5 DST-MC3 3/31/2013 0.05 U 0.024 0.012 J 0.01 UJ 0.011 0.2 U 0.2 U 0.035 1 U 6.4 DST-MC3 4/26/2013 0.05 U 0.032 0.02 U 0.02 U 0.02 0.2 U 0.2 U 0.033 1 2.6 DST-MC3 5/7/2013 0.05 U 0.037 0.1 U 0.023 0.3 0.3 0.046 1 U 4.2 DST-MC4 11/17/2012 0.05 U 0.34 0.11 0.01 U 0.16 0.78 0.89 0.42 56 31 DST-MC4 11/30/2012 0.05 U 0.075 0.18 0.01 U 0.06 0.57 0.75 0.096 20 32 DST-MC4 12/5/2012 0.05 U 0.038 0.071 0.051 0.021 0.22 0.342 0.04 3 12 DST-MC4 12/17/2012 0.05 U 0.017 0.063 0.01 U 0.011 0.41 0.473 0.044 18 9.3 DST-MC4 3/13/2013 0.05 U 0.01 0.01 U 0.01 U 0.01 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.02 5 3.8 DST-MC4 3/20/2013 0.05 U 0.029 0.04 0.025 U 0.01 U 0.2 U 0.04 0.037 3 3.8 DST-MC4 3/31/2013 0.05 U 0.016 0.084 J 0.01 J 0.01 U 0.22 0.314 0.024 6 5.3 DST-MC4 4/26/2013 0.05 U 0.024 0.035 0.02 U 0.014 0.2 U 0.035 0.028 3 1.5 DST-MC4 5/7/2013 0.05 U 0.031 0.1 U 0.014 0.29 0.29 0.043 8 7.8 DST-MC5 11/17/2012 0.05 U 0.028 0.01 U 0.01 U 0.01 U 0.24 0.24 0.054 9 5.5 DST-MC5 11/30/2012 0.05 U 0.1 0.14 0.01 U 0.083 0.71 0.85 0.11 48 49 DST-MC5 12/5/2012 0.05 U 0.047 0.11 0.055 0.029 0.32 0.485 0.052 2 14 DST-MC5 12/17/2012 0.05 U 0.03 0.06 0.01 U 0.019 0.26 0.32 0.041 4 5.6 DST-MC5 3/13/2013 0.05 U 0.014 0.01 U 0.01 U 0.01 U 0.16 0.16 0.028 4 5.3 DST-MC5 3/20/2013 0.05 U 0.023 0.01 U 0.025 U 0.01 U 0.2 U 0.2 U 0.025 4 5.3 DST-MC5 3/31/2013 0.05 U 0.023 0.018 J 0.011 J 0.01 U 0.2 0.229 0.027 3 3.5 DST-MC5 4/26/2013 0.05 U 0.024 0.02 U 0.02 U 0.017 0.2 U 0.2 U 0.033 2 2.1 DST-MC5 5/7/2013 0.05 U 0.026 0.1 U 0.015 0.18 J 0.18 0.031 1 2.7 DST-MC6 11/30/2012 0.1 0.091 2.4 0.014 0.069 1.4 3.814 0.096 20 68 DST-MC6 12/5/2012 0.05 U 0.024 0.01 U 0.05 0.01 U 0.32 0.37 0.029 1 U 5.3 DST-MC6 12/17/2012 0.05 U 0.027 0.056 0.01 U 0.01 0.33 0.386 0.82 1 U 4.2 DST-MC6 3/13/2013 0.05 U 0.04 0.01 U 0.01 U 0.016 0.21 0.21 0.05 1 1.9 DST-MC6 3/20/2013 0.05 U 0.016 0.01 U 0.025 U 0.01 U 0.31 0.31 0.017 1 U 3.1 DST-MC6 3/31/2013 0.05 U 0.023 0.017 J 0.01 UJ 0.01 U 0.38 0.397 0.02 1 U 2.2 DST-MC6 4/26/2013 0.05 U 0.021 0.02 U 0.02 U 0.015 0.5 0.5 0.029 6 4.1 DST-MC6 5/7/2013 0.05 U 0.021 0.1 U 0.01 U 0.44 0.44 0.029 1 2.1 StationName Sample Type Sample Collection Date Ammonia as N Dissolved Ammonia as N Dissolved Phosphorus Nitrate as N Nitrite as N Ortho- phosphate Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) Total Nitrogen as N Total Phosphorus Total Suspended Solids Turbidity mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L NTU DST-MC1 01/30/2014 0.05 U 0.068 0.087 0.01 U 0.051 0.40 0.49 0.22 3 4.4 DST-MC1 02/09/2014 0.05 U 0.088 0.25 0.011 0.059 0.73 0.99 0.13 25 19 DST-MC1 02/27/2014 0.05 U 0.032 0.017 0.01 U 0.011 0.21 0.22 0.047 2 4.3 DST-MC1 3/29/2014 0.05 U 0.022 0.01 U 0.01 U 0.01 U 0.2 U 0.22 U 0.031 4 3 DST-MC1 04/08/2014 0.05 U 0.020 0.01 U 0.01 U 0.01 U 0.1 U 0.12 U 0.033 4 2.2 DST-MC1 05/20/2014 0.05 U 0.034 0.016 0.014 0.017 0.20 0.23 0.049 18 4.1 DST-MC1 07/21/2014 0.05 U 0.042 0.01 U 0.01 U 0.013 0.48 0.48 0.058 3 2.8 DST-MC1 08/04/2014 0.05 U 0.035 0.01 U 0.01 U 0.014 0.37 0.37 0.096 9 4.3 DST-MC2 01/30/2014 0.1 U 0.030 0.012 0.01 U 0.025 0.22 0.23 0.15 3 3.6 DST-MC2 02/09/2014 0.05 U 0.068 0.21 0.01 U 0.044 0.59 0.79 0.13 24 14 DST-MC2 02/27/2014 0.05 U 0.022 0.01 U 0.01 U 0.18 0.2 U 0.22 U 0.028 1 U 4.6 DST-MC2 3/29/2014 0.05 U 0.023 0.01 U 0.01 U 0.01 0.2 U 0.22 U 0.032 5 3.3 DST-MC2 04/08/2014 0.05 U 0.024 0.01 U 0.01 U 0.011 0.1 U 0.12 U 0.031 4 3.7 DST-MC2 05/20/2014 0.05 U 0.041 0.017 0.019 0.019 0.14 0.18 0.044 6 3.6 DST-MC2 07/21/2014 0.05 U 0.033 0.011 0.01 U 0.015 0.11 0.13 0.032 4 2.2 DST-MC2 08/04/2014 0.05 U 0.035 0.01 U 0.01 U 0.036 0.24 0.24 0.096 11 4.4 DST-MC3 01/30/2014 0.05 U 0.080 0.12 0.01 U 0.070 0.41 0.53 0.22 1 4.9 DST-MC3 02/09/2014 0.05 U 0.11 0.26 0.011 0.081 0.55 0.82 0.16 5 13 DST-MC3 02/27/2014 0.05 U 0.030 0.018 0.01 U 0.042 0.25 0.27 0.033 1 U 2.4 Water Year 2013 Water Year 2014 StationName Sample Type Sample Collection Date Ammonia as N Nitrate as N Nitrite as N Ortho- phosphate Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) Total Nitrogen as N Total Phosphorus Total Suspended Solids Turbidity mg/L mg/L mg/L NTU DST-MC3 3/29/2014 0.05 U 0.022 0.01 U 0.01 U 0.01 U 0.2 U 0.22 U 0.024 1 U 0.59 DST-MC3 04/08/2014 0.05 U 0.020 0.01 U 0.01 U 0.015 0.1 U 0.12 U 0.022 1 U 0.43 DST-MC3 05/20/2014 0.05 U 0.024 0.016 0.01 U 0.012 0.17 0.18 0.045 2 0.82 DST-MC4 01/30/2014 0.05 U 0.030 0.62 0.01 U 0.027 0.29 0.91 0.20 24 10 DST-MC4 02/09/2014 0.05 U 0.064 0.39 0.012 0.042 0.57 0.97 0.13 24 17 DST-MC4 02/27/2014 0.05 U 0.024 0.23 0.01 U 0.023 0.2 U 0.23 0.031 2 4.2 DST-MC4 3/29/2014 0.05 U 0.016 0.066 0.01 U 0.01 U 0.2 U 0.22 U 0.043 11 5.9 DST-MC4 04/08/2014 0.05 U 0.018 0.065 0.01 U 0.01 U 0.1 U 0.12 U 0.028 6 2.7 DST-MC4 05/20/2014 0.05 U 0.022 0.016 0.01 U 0.010 0.23 0.25 0.050 19 7.7 DST-MC4 07/21/2014 0.05 U 0.040 0.14 0.01 U 0.016 0.23 0.36 0.068 17 7.7 DST-MC4 08/04/2014 0.05 U 0.042 0.072 0.01 U 0.025 0.50 0.57 0.092 17 8.6 DST-MC5 01/30/2014 0.05 U 0.050 0.037 0.01 U 0.040 0.35 0.39 0.18 4 5.0 DST-MC5 02/09/2014 0.05 U 0.15 0.22 0.01 0.061 0.54 0.77 0.14 16 15 DST-MC5 02/27/2014 0.05 U 0.027 0.059 0.01 U 0.14 0.22 0.28 0.038 1 U 4.7 DST-MC5 3/29/2014 0.05 U 0.024 0.011 0.01 U 0.01 U 0.2 U 0.22 U 0.03 3 3.5 DST-MC5 04/08/2014 0.05 U 0.024 0.01 U 0.01 U 0.01 U 0.1 U 0.12 U 0.030 2 2.1 DST-MC5 05/20/2014 0.05 U 0.048 0.017 0.018 0.014J 0.21 0.25 0.062 6 3.6J DST-MC5 DUP 05/20/2014 0.05 U 0.052 0.018 0.018 0.035J 0.20 0.23 0.060 7 6.1J DST-MC5 TRIPLICATE 05/20/2014 0.05 U 0.052 0.016 0.023 0.018J 0.14 0.18 0.058 6 3.3J DST-MC5 07/21/2014 0.05 U 0.049 0.011 0.01 U 0.015 0.24 0.26 0.058 3 2.6 DST-MC5 08/04/2014 0.05 U 0.036 0.01 U 0.01 U 0.023 0.61 0.61 0.089 16 8.4 DST-MC6 02/09/2014 0.05 U 0.076 0.16 0.01 U 0.068 0.33 0.49 0.12 6 11 DST-MC6 02/27/2014 0.05 U 0.027 0.16 0.01 U 0.10 0.66 0.82 0.029 1 U 1.6 DST-MC6 3/29/2014 0.05 U 0.016 0.01 U 0.01 U 0.01 U 0.52 0.52 0.02 1 1.7 Notes: U = not detected at concentration indicated J = estimated value due to precision issue Appendix E Quality Assurance/Quality Control Documentation E-1 Data Quality E.1 Overview This appendix summarizes the quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) procedures that were implemented in the laboratory and field to ensure that the data collected during the 2013-2014 Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Program for the Town of Truckee and Placer County. The purpose of the data review was to evaluate the data to ensure they were of known quality and met the project objectives. A general description of the laboratory and field QA/QC procedures is discussed in Section E.2. Upon receipt from the laboratory, a complete data quality evaluation was performed on all data generated during this program to ensure that the reported data accurately represent the concentrations of constituents present in the water samples. The process results of the data quality evaluation are discussed in Section B.3. E.2 Laboratory Quality Assurance/Quality Control Procedures Quality assurance is defined as the integrated program designed for assuring reliability of monitoring and measurement of data. Quality control is defined as the routine application of procedures for obtaining prescribed standards of performance in the monitoring and measuring process. This section presents quality control procedures that were conducted by the laboratory to ensure analytical data quality. A description of the general practices required of the laboratory is summarized below. E.2.1 Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) Western Environmental Testing Laboratory (Wet Lab) performed all analyses and QA/QC procedures in accordance with published analytical methods and internal SOPs. The internal SOPs provide step-by-step instructions for performing analytical methods. Utilizing SOPs is a method to ensure uniformity and compliance in the measurement process. E.2.2 Purity of Standards, Solvents and Reagents The purity/quality of reagents, solvents and standards used in the analytical process is a critical component in the generation of high quality data. All reagents used were of reagent-grade (equivalent) or higher grade quality whenever obtainable. Where applicable, reference standard solutions were traceable to the National Institute of Standards Technology (NIST), the American Association for Laboratory Accreditation (AALA), or to an equivalent source. Each new lot of reagent-grade chemicals was tested for quality of performance, and laboratory records were kept to document the results of lot tests. Appendix E Data Quality E-2 E.2.3 Calibration Instrument calibration is performed to ensure that the instrument is capable of producing acceptable qualitative and quantitative data for target compounds. Calibration procedures vary by analytical method. In general, each instrument is calibrated initially using certified standards, followed by periodic (i.e., daily) calibration verifications to confirm that the initial calibration is valid. E.2.4 Method Blank A method blank (MB) is a QC sample that consists of all reagents specific to the method and is carried through every aspect of the procedure, including preparation, cleanup and analysis. The MB is used to identify any interferences or contamination of the analytical system that may lead to the reporting of elevated analyte concentrations or false positive data. Potential sources of contamination include solvent, reagents, glassware, or the laboratory environment. The MB is prepared with each group of samples processed. One batch of samples is generally defined as a group of 20 samples or less of the same sample matrix that are processed using the same procedures, reagents and standards within the same time period. E.2.5 Laboratory Control Sample A laboratory control sample (LCS) is a laboratory-generated clean matrix sample that is fortified with known concentrations of target analytes. The LCS is then carried along with the environmental samples through the entire sample preparation/ analysis sequence. Review of the LCS recovery data is used to monitor the performance of the analytical methods. The results of the LCS, used in conjunction with the matrix spike samples, can provide evidence that the laboratory performed the method correctly or the sample matrix affected the results. E.2.6 Matrix Spike Sample Matrix spikes (MS) and matrix spike duplicates (MSDs) are analyzed to evaluate the effect of the sample matrix on the accuracy of the analytical procedures. A matrix spike is an environmental sample that has been spiked with known concentrations of target analytes. The matrix-spiked sample is then carried through the entire analytical sequence like all other samples. The analyte concentrations detected during the analysis are compared to the known spike concentrations to obtain a percent recovery for each spiked analyte. The recoveries are compared to acceptance limits and the results are used to evaluate accuracy and the presence of matrix interferences. The difference between the MS and the MSD analyses is expressed as the relative percent difference (RPD). RPDs are used to evaluate analytical precision and can also be a measure of relative sample heterogeneity. Appendix E Data Quality E-3 E.3 Data Quality Evaluation Upon receipt from the laboratory, each analytical report was thoroughly reviewed and the data evaluated to determine if the data met the project objectives. Data reviewed included storm water samples. Initially, the data were screened for the following major items: A 100 percent check between electronic data provided by the laboratory and the hard copy reports; Conformity check between the chain-of-custody forms, compositing protocol, and laboratory reports; A check for laboratory data report completeness; and, A check for typographical errors on the laboratory reports. After performing the aforementioned data screening, the laboratory was notified of any deficiencies, if any, by way of a telephone call detailing the problems encountered during the initial screening process. Following the initial screening, a more complete QA/QC review was performed, which included an evaluation of method holding times, method blank contamination, and accuracy and precision. Accuracy was evaluated by reviewing MS, MSD and LCS recoveries; precision was evaluated by reviewing field duplicate, spike duplicate and laboratory sample duplicate RPDs. A total of 608 constituents were measured among 61 samples (including field QC samples). Data quality assessment was based upon review of holding times, laboratory blanks, laboratory control samples, laboratory duplicates, matrix spikes and matrix spike duplicates, reporting limits, and field duplicates. Based on the data review, none of the constituent results were rejected. The following sections describe specific items that were evaluated during the QA/QC review process and data that were qualified as estimated due to laboratory QC exceedances. E.3.1 Holding Times A sample holding time is defined as the maximum allowable time a sample can be stored after sample collection and preservation until analysis. During the data review process, it was determined that no samples were analyzed past their technical holding times. Therefore, no results were qualified due to holding time exceedances. E.3.2 Blank Evaluation As mentioned previously, analytical results from laboratory method blanks were evaluated during the QA/QC review process. Blanks can be used to identify the presence and potential source of sample contamination. If no contamination is present Appendix E Data Quality E-4 in the blanks, then no further action is required. Laboratory method blanks were analyzed with every batch of samples for most analyses. In the 2013-2014 dataset, no analytes were detected in the laboratory method blanks at concentrations greater than their respective reporting limits. Therefore, none of the data were qualified as a result of laboratory contamination. E.3.3 Accuracy and Precision Accuracy is the degree of agreement between a measurement and the true or expected value or between the average of a number of measurements and the true or expected value. Systematic errors affect accuracy. For chemical properties, accuracy is expressed as percent recovery (%R), which is calculated as follows: %R = [(Cs - C)/S] * 100 where: %R = percent recovery Cs = spiked sample concentration C = background sample concentration S = concentration equivalent of spike added MS, MSD and LCS results were checked to assess the accuracy of the analytical process. MS and MSD results provided an evaluation of accuracy in environmental sample matrices; whereas, LCS results provided a measure of accuracy throughout the entire recovery process. Precision is an estimate of variability. In other words, precision is an estimate of agreement among individual measurements of the same physical or chemical property, under prescribed similar conditions. Precision can be calculated as the relative percent difference (RPD) as follows: RPD = 2 * [(S - D)/(S + D)] * 100 where: RPD = relative percent difference S = concentration measured in original sample D = concentration measured in duplicate sample Duplicate sample results (laboratory duplicates) were checked to assess the variability and precision between samples. Depending on the analytical method, various types of laboratory duplicate results were compared to assess precision. For example, some methods require the analysis of an MS and an MSD sample pair, whereas other methods are not as specific. When MS/MSD analyses are not specified, the laboratory calculated precision using a sample and a duplicate of the same sample. Appendix E Data Quality E-5 Control limits for spike recoveries and RPDs are shown on Table B-1. These are the acceptance limits used to evaluate the usability of the project data. Table B-1 Accuracy and Precision Control Limits Analyte % Recovery (Accuracy) RPD (Precision) Ammonia 80 - 120 20 Nitrate/Nitrite (as N) 80 - 120 20 Orthophosphate 80 - 120 20 Phosphorus (total) 80 - 120 20 Phosphorus (dissolved) 80 - 120 20 TKN 80 - 120 20 TSS 80 - 120 20 Turbidity -- 20 The following sections discuss the results of accuracy and precision measurements. Laboratory Duplicates In the 2013-2014 dataset, no results were qualified as estimated due to laboratory duplicate exceedances. Field Triplicates There are no specific regulatory criteria available to evaluate field triplicate results. However, the TRWQMP specifies that the average percent error between field triplicates should be less than 20 percent. Average percent error is calculated by the following formula: Average Percent Error = 100* Standard Deviation of triplicates Average result of triplicates In the 2013-2014 dataset, triplicate samples were collected from Sites DST-MC5 and DSC-MC4 on May 20, 2014 to assess field and laboratory precision. The following tables summarize the triplicate sample results and average percent error results. Appendix E Data Quality E-6 Site DSC-MC4 Primary Duplicate Triplicate Average % Error Analyte DSCMC41405201015 DSCMC411405201015 DSCMC421405201015 Ammonia, as Nitrogen 0.22 0.21 0.22 2.7 Dissolved Phosphorous as P 0.17 0.18 0.18 3.3 Nitrate as N 0.56 0.55 0.56 1.0 Nitrite as N 0.024 0.025 0.026 4.0 Orthophosphate 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.0 Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen 2.1 2.0 1.9 5.0 Total Nitrogen as N 2.6 2.5 2.5 2.3 Total Phosphorous as P 0.19 0.20 0.18 5.3 Total Suspended Solids 160 170 140 9.8 Turbidity 110 94 93 9.6 Site DST-MC5 Primary Duplicate Triplicate Average % Error Analyte DSTMC51405201400 DSTMC511405201400 DSTMC52140520 1400 Ammonia, as Nitrogen <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 0.0 Dissolved Phosphorous as P 0.048 0.052 0.052 4.6 Nitrate as N 0.017 0.018 0.016 5.9 Nitrite as N 0.018 0.018 0.023 15 Orthophosphate 0.014 0.035 0.018 50 Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen 0.21 0.20 0.14 21 Total Nitrogen as N 0.25 0.23 0.18 16 Total Phosphorous as P 0.062 0.060 0.058 3.3 Total Suspended Solids 6 7 6 9.1 Turbidity 3.6 6.1 3.3 36 Based on the data presented above for the the 2013-2014 dataset, average percent error was within 20 percent for all field triplicate results except two, as shown in red in the tables above. Specifically, the orthophosphate and turbidity triplicate results from Site DST-MC5 should be qualified with “Js” to indicate estimated concentrations as a result of precision. All other results are usable as reported without qualification. Laboratory Control Samples In the 2013-2014 dataset, no results were qualified due to out-of-range LCS recoveries. Matrix Spike/Matrix Spike Duplicate Samples (MS/MSDs) In the 2013-2014 dataset, recoveries for ammonia and TKN in several batches of samples were not calculated as a result of matrix interferences. However, in all cases, Appendix E Data Quality E-7 the corresponding LCS recoveries were within acceptable limits. In accordance with data review guidance, qualification is not warranted based on out-of-range MS and/or MSD results alone. Therefore, no further action was required. Overall Summary All results were evaluated against Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Program specified quality control criteria. In total, the orthophosphate and turbidity results from one sample and its duplicate and triplicate samples from Site DST-MC5 collected on May 20, 2014 were qualified with “Js” due to precision exceedances. The QA/QC review of analytical results found all the data to be of acceptable quality and usable for the intended purposes, including sample data qualified as estimated due to precision issues. Appendix F Measured Stream Discharge and USGS Data Appendix F Annual hydrologic record, Martis Creek at Martis Creek Lake (GS-MC2) Water Year 2014 (preliminary) WY 2014 Daily Mean Flow (cubic feet per second) DAY OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEPT 1 4.0 5.5 5.1 4.8 6.8 9.3 8.8 5.7 5.8 2.1 3.0 3.0 2 4.0 5.0 5.2 5.0 6.6 9.3 8.8 5.3 6.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3 4.0 5.0 5.5 4.4 6.6 9.2 8.7 4.8 4.0 2.0 3.0 2.5 4 4.5 5.0 5.0 3.0 6.6 9.3 8.5 4.4 3.5 2.0 3.0 2.4 5 3.5 5.0 4.5 5.0 6.6 9.2 8.3 4.1 3.0 2.0 10.6 2.3 6 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 6.5 10.9 8.1 4.4 3.8 3.0 4.0 2.3 7 4.0 5.0 5.4 4.0 6.5 11.4 7.8 4.5 4.0 3.0 4.0 2.3 8 4.5 5.0 5.0 4.5 12.1 10.7 7.7 4.3 3.0 3.0 4.0 2.1 9 3.8 4.5 4.0 5.0 97.2 10.0 7.6 4.3 3.0 2.0 3.0 2.2 10 4.9 4.5 4.5 5.0 75.4 9.8 7.5 4.3 3.0 2.0 3.0 1.7 11 4.8 4.5 4.5 5.0 21.2 9.8 7.4 4.6 3.0 3.5 3.0 2.9 12 3.9 5.5 4.5 7.0 12.9 9.4 7.4 5.2 2.5 3.5 3.0 2.5 13 4.9 5.0 4.5 5.0 11.0 9.0 7.3 5.6 1.9 1.5 3.0 2.7 14 5.0 4.5 5.5 4.5 10.3 8.6 7.0 5.7 2.8 1.5 3.0 2.8 15 5.0 4.5 4.5 4.5 9.8 8.3 6.8 5.7 3.5 1.5 3.0 2.7 16 4.5 5.0 5.0 3.5 9.7 8.0 6.7 5.6 3.0 2.0 2.8 3.0 17 5.0 5.5 4.0 3.6 9.4 7.8 6.5 5.5 2.5 2.0 2.2 2.7 18 4.4 5.5 5.0 4.5 9.0 7.5 6.5 5.4 3.5 4.0 2.0 2.0 19 4.2 5.0 4.5 3.9 8.6 7.2 6.4 5.4 3.0 3.0 2.0 5.0 20 4.5 4.5 5.0 3.5 8.2 6.9 6.3 5.7 3.0 2.3 2.0 2.0 21 4.1 7.3 4.8 3.6 7.8 6.7 6.1 6.4 2.9 3.0 2.0 2.0 22 4.5 5.6 4.9 3.5 7.5 6.4 5.9 6.6 2.4 4.5 2.0 5.5 23 4.5 3.7 4.7 3.2 7.2 6.1 5.9 6.4 3.5 1.5 2.0 2.0 24 3.9 4.5 4.0 3.5 6.9 5.9 5.6 6.3 3.0 2.4 2.0 2.0 25 5.3 4.6 4.5 3.5 6.5 5.6 5.9 6.1 2.5 2.1 2.0 5.0 26 5.0 4.7 3.8 3.5 6.3 5.8 6.5 5.8 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 27 4.5 4.9 4.5 4.0 7.6 6.0 6.8 5.5 3.0 2.0 5.8 5.5 28 5.2 5.3 4.5 4.5 8.5 6.1 6.8 5.3 3.0 2.0 2.9 2.0 29 6.5 4.6 4.5 6.9 6.4 6.5 5.3 3.0 2.4 2.0 5.0 30 6.0 4.0 4.0 7.3 7.7 6.1 5.2 2.5 3.0 4.0 5.5 31 5.0 4.3 7.2 8.4 5.3 3.0 3.0 MEAN 4.6 4.9 4.6 4.5 14.3 8.2 7.1 5.3 3.2 2.4 3.1 3.0 MAX. DAY 6.5 7.3 5.5 7.3 97.2 11.4 8.8 6.6 6.0 4.5 10.6 5.5 MIN. DAY 3.5 3.7 3.8 3.0 6.3 5.6 5.6 4.1 1.9 1.5 2.0 1.7 cfs days 142.0 148.2 143.5 140.1 399.3 252.8 211.9 164.6 96.6 75.9 96.2 88.6 ac-ft 281.7 293.9 284.6 277.9 792.1 501.4 420.3 326.6 191.7 150.5 190.8 175.7 Monitor's Comments 1. Provisional data, subject to revision 2. Daily values in italics were obtained from the Truckee River Operating Agreement (Martis Creek Reservoir near Truckee, Site ID 150021). 5.4 (cfs) 97 (cfs) 1.5 (cfs) 1,960 (cfs-days) Annual total 3,887 (ac-ft) Water Year 2014 Totals: Mean flow Max. daily flow Min. daily flow Annual total Appendix F Annual hydrologic record, West Martis Creek (Turb-MC1) Water Year 2014 (preliminary) WY 2014 Daily Mean Flow (cubic feet per second) DAY OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEPT 1 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 2.2 2.2 1.7 1.0 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.2 2 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 1.3 2.0 1.4 0.9 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.2 3 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.7 0.7 1.9 1.3 0.9 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.2 4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 2.2 2.0 1.3 0.9 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.2 5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 1.4 1.9 1.3 0.9 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.2 6 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.7 3.8 1.3 1.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 7 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 1.6 2.9 1.4 1.0 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 8 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 12.4 2.4 1.5 0.8 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 9 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.7 23.9 2.2 1.6 0.8 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 10 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.7 9.1 2.3 1.7 0.9 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 11 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.7 3.9 2.0 1.8 0.9 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.2 12 0.5 0.4 0.6 0.7 3.0 1.8 1.8 0.9 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.2 13 0.5 0.4 0.6 0.7 2.7 1.7 1.7 0.7 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 14 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.7 2.6 1.6 1.5 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 15 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 2.2 1.5 1.4 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 16 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.7 2.4 1.5 1.3 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.4 17 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 2.3 1.6 1.5 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.4 18 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 2.2 1.4 2.0 0.5 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.4 19 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 1.5 1.2 1.6 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.3 20 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.7 1.3 1.2 2.0 0.8 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.5 21 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.7 1.2 1.2 1.6 0.8 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.6 22 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.7 1.2 1.1 1.2 0.6 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.4 23 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.7 1.4 1.1 0.9 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.3 24 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.7 1.2 1.1 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.4 25 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.7 1.1 1.1 1.8 0.5 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.2 26 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.7 1.2 1.2 2.1 0.5 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.3 27 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.7 2.7 1.5 2.0 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.5 28 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.7 2.4 1.3 1.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.4 29 0.5 0.5 0.6 2.3 2.1 1.0 0.5 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.3 30 0.5 0.5 0.6 1.7 2.5 1.0 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.2 0.3 31 0.5 0.6 0.9 2.5 0.4 0.4 0.2 MEAN 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.8 3.3 1.8 1.5 0.7 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 MAX. DAY 0.5 0.5 0.6 2.3 23.9 3.8 2.1 1.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 MIN. DAY 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 1.1 0.9 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 cfs days 14.8 14.1 18.3 23.3 91.9 55.8 45.1 21.6 10.8 8.7 7.9 8.8 ac-ft 29.3 28.0 36.2 46.1 182.2 110.7 89.5 42.9 21.4 17.2 15.6 17.5 Monitor's Comments 1. Provisional data, subject to revision 2. Daily values in italics are ice-corrected flows, correlated with streamflow from Sagehen Creek, California 0.9 (cfs) 24 (cfs) 0.2 (cfs) 321 (cfs-days) Annual total 637 (ac-ft) Water Year 2014 Totals: Mean flow Max. daily flow Min. daily flow Annual total Appendix F Annual hydrologic record, Martis Creek (Turb-MC2) Water Year 2014 (preliminary) WY2014 Daily Mean Flow (cubic feet per second) DAY OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEPT 1 4.1 2.3 1.7 3.7 7.9 7.3 3.7 1.7 0.9 1.2 1.1 2 4.0 2.0 1.7 3.8 7.0 6.6 3.6 1.4 0.9 1.0 1.0 3 4.0 2.1 1.7 2.8 6.9 6.0 3.4 1.4 0.9 1.1 1.1 4 3.8 3.0 1.7 2.8 7.8 5.9 3.3 1.3 0.8 2.1 1.1 5 3.7 2.2 2.4 3.0 7.3 5.6 3.3 1.2 0.8 2.1 1.1 6 3.4 2.5 1.8 2.6 15.9 5.4 3.6 1.2 0.8 1.6 1.1 7 3.0 3.2 1.7 2.6 11.4 5.5 3.4 1.2 0.8 1.4 1.1 8 2.7 3.2 1.7 21.2 9.4 5.5 3.3 1.2 0.8 1.3 1.1 9 2.3 3.4 1.7 82.1 8.4 5.6 3.3 1.2 0.8 1.2 1.1 10 1.8 2.1 4.2 1.7 36.5 9.3 5.6 3.3 1.1 0.9 1.1 1.1 11 1.8 1.9 3.0 2.1 15.1 8.3 5.5 3.3 1.0 0.9 1.3 1.1 12 1.8 1.8 2.2 1.9 9.5 7.3 5.5 3.1 1.0 0.9 1.3 1.1 13 1.8 1.8 1.9 2.2 8.4 6.7 5.3 2.9 1.0 0.8 1.1 1.1 14 1.9 1.8 1.9 2.5 8.7 6.4 5.1 2.8 1.3 0.8 1.1 1.1 15 1.9 1.8 1.8 2.4 7.5 6.1 5.1 2.9 1.3 0.9 1.1 1.2 16 1.9 1.8 1.8 2.4 8.4 5.8 5.1 2.6 1.2 1.0 1.0 1.1 17 1.9 1.7 1.9 2.7 6.9 5.8 5.0 2.5 1.2 1.0 1.0 1.1 18 2.0 1.7 2.0 2.2 6.1 5.5 5.1 2.5 1.2 1.2 1.0 1.1 19 2.0 1.8 2.0 2.1 5.6 5.2 4.8 2.5 1.2 1.0 1.0 1.3 20 1.8 2.0 2.1 2.3 5.1 5.0 4.6 3.4 1.0 1.3 1.0 1.2 21 2.0 2.2 1.9 2.5 4.8 4.9 4.4 3.5 1.2 1.6 1.0 1.3 22 2.8 1.8 1.9 2.3 4.6 4.7 4.8 2.9 1.2 1.2 1.0 1.4 23 3.7 2.2 1.8 2.0 4.3 4.5 4.4 2.6 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.3 24 3.7 2.6 1.8 1.5 4.1 4.4 4.2 2.4 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.3 25 3.7 3.0 1.9 1.7 4.0 4.5 5.6 2.3 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 26 3.7 2.4 2.0 2.0 4.1 5.0 5.8 2.2 1.1 1.1 1.5 1.6 27 3.7 1.9 1.9 1.9 9.1 5.1 5.2 2.1 1.1 1.0 1.2 2.4 28 4.2 1.9 1.8 1.7 8.6 4.7 4.6 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.1 2.1 29 4.1 1.9 1.8 2.8 7.0 4.2 2.1 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.9 30 4.1 2.2 1.8 4.3 8.7 3.9 2.0 0.9 1.2 1.1 1.6 31 4.2 1.7 2.8 7.6 1.8 1.3 1.0 MEAN 3 2.5 2 2.1 10.2 6.9 5 3 1 1 1.2 1.3 MAX. DAY 4 4.1 4 4.3 82.1 16 7 4 2 2 2.1 2.4 MIN. DAY 1.8 1.7 1.7 1.5 2.6 4.4 4 2 1 0.8 1.0 1.0 cfs days 60 74 69 66 286 215 157 89 35 31 37 38 ac-ft 120 146 137 131 567 426 312 176 69 62 74 76 Monitor's Comments 1. Provisional data, subject to revision 2. Period of record is from October 10, 2013 to present 3.3 (cfs) 82 (cfs) 0.8 (cfs) 1,157 (cfs-days) Annual total 2,296 (ac-ft) Water Year 2014 Totals: Mean flow Max. daily flow Min. daily flow Annual total Appendix F Annual hydrologic record, Truckee River above Truckee USGS (10338000) Water Year 2014 (preliminary) WY 2014 Daily Mean Flow (cubic feet per second) DAY OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEPT 1 82 116 148 84 92 143 130 168 273 250 165 60 2 62 116 145 84 89 147 126 184 271 243 161 60 3 61 116 142 83 87 164 126 196 269 242 155 57 4 62 116 142 81 84 177 127 201 273 238 159 54 5 61 113 142 78 80 177 126 207 280 236 160 50 6 61 113 142 76 79 280 132 224 280 231 159 48 7 61 113 142 73 80 176 146 227 280 231 151 44 8 60 113 142 71 162 149 163 243 279 230 151 42 9 61 113 142 69 606 139 178 290 279 229 146 37 10 61 116 142 68 342 141 187 271 282 223 143 35 11 60 121 142 70 174 130 191 238 292 222 146 33 12 60 121 142 69 136 119 202 233 305 215 148 32 13 60 121 117 68 131 113 193 239 307 215 139 29 14 60 143 112 66 156 112 180 248 311 211 132 28 15 60 211 112 63 134 110 188 267 316 208 127 26 16 62 207 112 62 125 112 199 268 310 206 124 25 17 72 204 111 61 113 116 214 252 317 215 123 23 18 78 199 110 61 107 112 259 241 311 216 118 20 19 78 191 108 60 101 107 224 231 304 210 115 17 20 78 200 105 59 102 112 210 227 303 210 111 17 21 78 206 102 58 118 128 198 217 292 222 105 15 22 78 226 98 56 130 127 193 226 287 212 97 15 23 107 198 97 62 130 127 172 266 282 200 92 14 24 114 171 97 56 129 128 164 275 280 195 87 13 25 115 164 95 50 129 130 178 286 275 189 85 12 26 116 161 94 48 130 130 164 283 260 184 83 13 27 116 160 93 48 152 127 158 254 262 179 80 20 28 120 156 91 47 144 123 154 244 253 175 77 17 29 117 153 90 78 141 157 243 254 173 75 16 30 117 150 87 154 141 161 268 249 171 70 14 31 116 85 104 135 276 169 64 MEAN 80 154 117 70 144 138 173 242 284 211 121 30 MAX. DAY 120 226 148 154 606 280 259 290 317 250 165 60 MIN. DAY 60 113 85 47 79 107 126 168 249 169 64 12 cfs days 2491 4608 3630 2170 4041 4271 5200 7491 8535 6550 3747 888 ac-ft 4941 9139 7201 4304 8016 8471 10315 14859 16929 12991 7431 1761 Monitor's Comments 1. USGS provisional data, subject to revision 2. Streamflow is regulated by Tahoe City Dam 147 (cfs) 606 (cfs) 12.2 (cfs) 53,621 (cfs-days) Annual total 106,358 (ac-ft) United State Geological Survey (USGS), Truckee Field Office Water Year 2014 Totals: Mean flow Max. daily flow Min. daily flow Annual total Appendix F Annual hydrologic record, Truckee River at Boca Bridge USGS (10344505) Water Year 2014 (preliminary) WY 2014 Daily Mean Flow (cubic feet per second) DAY OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEPT 1 403 349 363 265 230 393 405 762 628 454 183 145 2 373 344 364 264 226 390 381 779 595 446 175 143 3 377 344 364 263 234 420 378 761 590 463 176 145 4 378 344 368 260 237 441 402 749 596 463 188 140 5 372 357 360 257 232 442 410 741 592 457 197 123 6 371 362 323 252 231 609 422 730 592 460 209 114 7 371 361 307 251 232 480 466 721 588 470 201 107 8 368 360 305 248 309 423 503 741 587 470 207 104 9 365 359 298 246 1042 404 552 806 587 466 195 101 10 364 358 261 247 785 409 584 761 588 460 194 97 11 362 364 158 252 459 394 588 707 588 462 196 102 12 362 356 164 251 412 376 593 720 587 452 200 99 13 360 360 159 231 379 378 584 736 588 462 190 97 14 362 366 155 223 428 380 558 740 589 460 191 97 15 361 372 153 221 392 375 567 751 595 466 186 94 16 357 359 151 219 371 375 609 743 588 465 180 89 17 363 362 151 218 354 384 624 715 601 473 177 89 18 370 366 152 217 353 379 656 708 593 466 174 85 19 369 357 149 217 354 367 608 701 583 460 179 83 20 367 373 153 215 344 368 596 706 583 459 179 80 21 365 377 143 214 354 390 584 699 582 463 176 78 22 363 392 140 200 364 389 612 707 590 448 169 76 23 367 360 138 186 360 388 609 733 588 444 160 79 24 370 339 137 188 354 388 627 731 588 460 156 94 25 368 353 136 178 352 393 657 731 587 464 160 95 26 368 362 134 177 351 392 634 721 577 458 166 95 27 367 362 163 176 393 375 623 679 591 460 165 101 28 371 363 219 176 389 362 656 688 593 461 168 95 29 363 360 219 187 397 748 704 598 438 167 92 30 361 360 230 351 436 756 698 481 225 164 81 31 356 267 250 424 667 189 151 MEAN 367 360 219 229 376 404 566 727 587 443 180 101 MAX. DAY 403 392 368 351 1042 609 756 806 628 473 209 145 MIN. DAY 356 339 134 176 226 362 378 667 481 189 151 76 cfs days 11392 10798 6783 7098 10520 12519 16991 22533 17614 13746 5579 3019 ac-ft 22595 21418 13454 14080 20866 24831 33703 44695 34937 27265 11066 5988 Monitor's Comments 1. USGS provisional data, subject to revision 2. The Middle Truckee River is regulated by 7 dams 380 (cfs) 1042 (cfs) 76.2 (cfs) 138,593 (cfs-days) Annual total 274,898 (ac-ft) United State Geological Survey (USGS), Truckee Field Office Water Year 2014 Totals: Mean flow Max. daily flow Min. daily flow Annual total Appendix F Annual hydrologic record, Truckee River at Farad USGS (10346000) Water Year 2014 (preliminary) WY2014 Daily Mean Flow (cubic feet per second) DAY OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEPT 1 459 385 384 290 260 444 457 789 666 489 210 165 2 425 384 388 289 257 437 432 813 641 482 200 161 3 421 379 387 289 259 461 428 803 631 496 199 160 4 424 379 382 286 263 478 444 790 640 502 217 160 5 420 385 385 283 259 481 456 784 635 492 231 145 6 417 396 363 278 259 623 460 775 637 492 240 125 7 416 393 339 277 258 536 495 759 633 497 234 122 8 414 392 348 275 295 475 519 770 629 502 234 117 9 413 389 364 272 911 455 561 824 631 501 223 112 10 410 388 366 272 928 455 595 832 628 494 220 109 11 408 391 288 277 540 448 607 757 632 498 222 111 12 407 388 239 278 475 426 615 749 628 487 227 108 13 406 385 247 263 434 427 611 774 631 493 217 107 14 404 393 234 250 476 429 584 778 631 495 212 105 15 403 399 218 248 451 425 583 789 641 507 212 101 16 399 391 197 244 426 425 629 799 632 504 203 97 17 401 384 181 244 408 431 639 769 644 505 198 97 18 409 394 179 243 404 429 676 748 643 517 194 95 19 409 384 177 243 408 417 636 746 629 506 200 92 20 405 394 180 241 396 415 626 738 629 502 198 88 21 405 401 170 239 404 436 606 743 627 506 198 87 22 401 408 167 233 415 438 636 740 635 490 191 87 23 403 397 165 208 412 436 634 761 635 484 180 84 24 409 369 164 215 407 436 653 770 634 495 177 101 25 405 370 162 202 404 440 676 768 636 504 177 101 26 405 384 161 200 403 443 670 767 624 495 186 106 27 403 386 174 197 446 428 657 727 634 495 184 110 28 411 385 246 197 436 412 663 710 637 500 188 110 29 402 385 246 207 430 766 720 643 485 185 104 30 399 382 245 349 479 783 730 539 281 184 96 31 396 290 285 465 711 217 173 MEAN 410 388 259 254 418 450 593 766 632 481 204 112 MAX. DAY 459 408 388 349 928 623 783 832 666 517 240 165 MIN. DAY 396 369 161 197 257 412 428 710 539 217 173 84 cfs days 12707 11639 8037 7872 11695 13962 17796 23733 18953 14913 6314 3365 ac-ft 25204 23087 15942 15614 23196 27693 35298 47074 37594 29581 12524 6674 Monitor's Comments 1. USGS provisional data, subject to revision 2. The Middle Truckee River is regulated by 7 dams 414 (cfs) 928 (cfs) 83.8 (cfs) 150,985 (cfs-days) Annual total 299,480 (ac-ft) United State Geological Survey (USGS), Truckee Field Office Water Year 2014 Totals: Mean flow Max. daily flow Min. daily flow Annual total Appendix G Suspended Sediment Load Data Appendix G. Suspended-sediment concentration and loading rates: West Martis Creek (TURB-MC1), water years 2013 and 2014 Site Conditions Suspended Sediment Sample Date:Time Ob s e r v e r ( s ) St a g e St r e a m f l o w Di s c h a r g e St r e a m f l o w V a l u e So u r c e St r e a m C o n d i t i o n Ev e n t T y p e Su s p e n d e d - Se d i m e n t Co n c e n t r a t i o n 15 - m i n u t e Tu r b i d i t y Su s p e n d e d - Se d i m e n t Tr a n s p o r t R a t e (ft) (cfs) M,R,E R,F,B,U,S R, R/S, SM (mg/l) (NTU) (tons/day) WY2013 11/17/12 14:07 CDM 1.91 2.82 R R R 56.0 31 0.43 11/30/12 12:30 CDM 3.12 16.73 R R R/S 20 32.0 0.90 12/5/12 10:44 CDM 2.73 9.49 R R R/S 3.0 14 0.08 12/17/12 9:55 CDM 1.97 2.37 R R R/S 18 5.4 0.11 3/13/13 15:15 CDM 1.88 1.84 R S SM 5.0 4.30 0.02 3/20/13 10:07 CDM 1.98 2.96 R S R 3.0 3.70 0.02 3/31/13 9:45 CDM 1.98 3.18 M F R 6.0 5.10 0.05 4/26/13 13:15 CDM 1.68 0.99 R F SM 3.0 2.36 0.0080 5/7/13 12:00 CDM 1.97 1.92 R F R 8.0 n/a 0.041 WY2014 1/30/14 7:45 CDM 0.79 1.78 R F R/S 24 12.60 0.12 2/9/14 10:10 CDM 2.60 26.10 M F R/S 24 29.0 1.69 2/27/14 8:05 CDM 0.82 2.42 R F R/S 2 6.1 0.01 3/29/14 14:50 CDM 0.88 2.78 R R R 11 7.9 0.08 4/8/14 19:20 CDM 0.71 1.78 R R SM 6 3.3 0.03 5/20/14 14:15 CDM 0.52 0.93 R R R 19 13 0.05 7/21/14 9:30 CDM 0.43 0.64 R Peak R 17 13 0.03 8/4/2014 15:24 CDM 0.47 0.77 R R BF 17 15.0 0.04 Notes Observer Key: CDM: various staff from Truckee Office Stage: arbitrary datum, station was relocated in WY2014 and stage is not comparable between years. Streamflow is the measured or 15-minute recorded flow when sediment was sampled, and usually differs from the daily streamflow. Streamflow Value Source: M = measured; R = rating curve; E = estimated Stream Condition: R = rising, F = falling, B = baseflow, U = uncertain, S = steady Event Type: BF = baseflow, R = rain, R/S = rain on snow, SM = snowmelt runoff Turbidity is the 15-minute recorded value when sediment was sampled; Suspended-sediment load (tons/day) is calculated by multiplying suspended-sediment concentration (SCC) by streamflow (cfs) and a conversion factor of 0.0027 Values are preliminary and subject to revision; SSC with values of 0.1 are used for plotting, laboratory results are ND FIgure 5-48 and 5-49 TURB-MC1 Curves.xlsx c2014 Balance Hydrologics, Inc. Appendix G. Suspended-sediment concentration and loading rates: Martis Creek (TURB-MC2), near Truckee, California Partial water year 2013 and water year 2014 Site Conditions Suspended Sediment Sample Date:Time Ob s e r v e r ( s ) St a g e St r e a m f l o w Di s c h a r g e St r e a m f l o w Va l u e S o u r c e St r e a m Co n d i t i o n Ev e n t T y p e Su s p e n d e d - Se d i m e n t Co n c e n t r a t i o n 15 - m i n u t e Tu r b i d i t y Su s p e n d e d - Se d i m e n t Tr a n s p o r t R a t e WY2013 (ft) (cfs) M,R,E R,F,B,U,S R, R/S, SM (mg/l) (NTU) (tons/day) 11/17/2012 13:46 CDM 0.73 5.0 R R R 9.0 5.5 0.12 11/30/2012 11:57 CDM 2.87 102 R R R/S 48 49.0 13 12/5/2012 10:30 CDM 2.71 85.8 R F R/S 2.0 14.0 0.46 12/17/2012 9:27 CDM 0.97 10.4 R S R/S 4.0 5.6 0.11 3/13/2013 14:50 CDM 1.16 10.5 R R 4.0 5.0 0.11 3/20/2013 9:37 CDM 1.72 24.0 R R R 4.0 5.1 0.26 3/31/2013 9:07 CDM 1.49 15.8 R R SM 3.0 3.4 0.13 4/26/2013 12:53 CDM 0.76 4.7 R F SM 2.0 1.8 0.03 5/7/2013 11:33 CDM 0.87 8.3 R R R 1.0 2.4 0.02 WY2014 1/30/2014 6:45 CDM 1.52 4.4 M F R/S 4.0 5.00 0.05 2/9/2014 9:40 CDM 4.18 105 R Peak R/S 16.0 21.0 4.53 2/27/2014 7:35 CDM 1.82 9.5 R F SM 0.0 4.2 0.00 3/29/2014 14:30 CDM 1.67 7.0 R R R 3.0 3.6 0.06 4/8/2014 19:50 CDM 1.57 5.2 R R SM 2.0 2.5 0.03 5/20/2014 14:00 CDM 1.44 3.5 R R R 6.3 2.4 0.06 7/21/14 9:15 CDM 1.28 1.77 R F R 3.0 2.60 0.01 8/4/14 15:04 CDM 1.40 2.90 R R R 16.0 10.00 0.13 Notes Bold values indicate laboratory turbidity results Observer Key: CDM staff Gage height: arbitrary datum, station was relocated in WY2014 and therefore gage height cannot be compared between years. Streamflow is the measured or 15-minute recorded flow when sediment was sampled, and usually differs from the daily streamflow. Streamflow Value Source: M = measured; R = rating curve; E = estimated Stream Condition: R = rising, F = falling, B = baseflow, U = uncertain, S = steady Event Type: R = rain, R/S = rain on snow, SM = snowmelt runoff In this case, turbidity values (in italics) are based on laboratory analysis and selected when 15-minute turbidity values are unavailable Suspended-sediment load (tons/day) is calculated by multiplying SSC by streamflow (cfs) and a conversion factor of 0.0027 Values are preliminary and subject to revision Figure 5-52 and 5-53 TURB-MC2 Curves.xlsx 2013 Balance Hydrologics, Inc. Appendix G: Suspended-sediment concentration and loading rates: Truckee River above Truckee, USGS #10338000, (TURB-MS3), water year 2014 Site Conditions Suspended Sediment Sample Date:Time Ob s e r v e r ( s ) St r e a m f l o w Di s c h a r g e St r e a m f l o w V a l u e So u r c e St r e a m C o n d i t i o n Ev e n t T y p e Su s p e n d e d - Se d i m e n t Co n c e n t r a t i o n 15 - m i n u t e Tu r b i d i t y Su s p e n d e d - Se d i m e n t Tr a n s p o r t R a t e (cfs) M,R,E R,F,B,U,S R/S, R, SM (mg/l) (NTU) (tons/day) WY2013 11/17/12 15:15 ds 335 USGS R R 11.0 5.9 9.9 11/18/12 14:30 bkh 290 USGS S/F R 72.0 0.9 56.3 11/30/12 16:45 bkh 886 USGS F R 40.0 21.0 95.5 12/2/12 10:05 ds, cs 1,660 USGS R R/S 220 128 984 12/2/12 14:30 bkh, cs 1,290 USGS F R/S 3.0 50.8 10.4 3/20/13 11:00 bkh 186 USGS R R/S 2.0 2.2 1.0 4/24/13 14:45 bkh, jo 202 USGS S SM 1.0 1.0 0.5 4/29/13 22:10 bkh, cs 325 USGS R SM 15.0 6.9 13.1 5/13/13 20:45 bkh 330 USGS R SM 10.0 4.3 8.9 6/25/13 14:15 bkh 457 USGS R R 10.0 4.0 12.3 7/4/13 8:05 ss 400 USGS S R 11.0 7.0 11.9 WY2014 1/29/14 14:40 bkh, pk 62 USGS R R/S 2.0 2.3 0.3 1/29/14 18:50 bkh 97 USGS R R/S 7.0 5.0 1.8 1/30/14 8:20 bkh 147 USGS F R/S 11.0 8.7 4.4 2/8/14 15:30 bkh, pk 194 USGS R R/S 100 27.0 52.3 2/9/14 10:15 bkh, pk 724 USGS Peak R/S 100 31.0 195.1 2/9/14 13:10 bkh, pk 650 USGS F R/S 48.0 20.2 84.1 2/10/14 8:30 bkh 340 USGS F R/S 16.0 6.9 14.7 3/6/14 8:35 bkh 385 USGS F R/S 19.0 9.0 19.7 3/29/14 19:00 bkh 169 USGS F R 3.0 4.2 1.4 7/17/14 19:50 bkh 223 USGS F R 240 163.0 144.3 10/7/14 10:30 bkh 13 USGS B -- 1 1.5 0.035 Notes Observer Key: (ds) is David Shaw, (bkh) is Brian Hastings, (cs) is Collin Strasenburgh, (jo) is Jon Owens, (ss) Stefan Schuster of CDM Streamflow is the measured or 15-minute recorded flow when sediment was sampled, and usually differs from the daily streamflow. Streamflow Value Source: USGS gage #10338000 accessed online at USGS.gov Stream Condition: R = rising, F = falling, B = baseflow, U = uncertain, S = steady Turbidity is the 15-minute recorded value when sediment was sampled; turbidity values in italics are estimates from laboratory analysis Suspended-sediment load (tons/day) is calculated by multiplying SSC by streamflow (cfs) and a conversion factor of 0.0027 Values are preliminary and subject to revision 212149 TURB-MS-3 Obs Log_WY14.xlsx c2013 Balance Hydrologics, Inc. Appendix G. Suspended-sediment concentration and loading rates: Truckee River at Boca Bridge (TURB-TT1), USGS #10344505, water years 2013-2014 Site Conditions Suspended Sediment Sample Date:Time Ob s e r v e r ( s ) St r e a m f l o w Di s c h a r g e St r e a m f l o w V a l u e So u r c e St r e a m C o n d i t i o n Ev e n t T y p e Su s p e n d e d - Se d i m e n t Co n c e n t r a t i o n 15 - m i n u t e Tu r b i d i t y Su s p e n d e d - Se d i m e n t Tr a n s p o r t R a t e (cfs) M,R,E R,F,B,U,S R/S, R, SM (mg/l) (NTU) (tons/day) WY2013 11/17/12 16:30 ds 457 USGS R R 5.0 1.1 6.2 11/30/12 16:10 bkh, ds 1725 UGSS Peak R 140 85.0 651 12/2/12 10:30 cs, ds 2430 USGS R R/S 190 103 1244 12/2/12 14:55 bkh, cs 2810 USGS F R/S 240 129 1818 3/20/13 11:30 bkh 592 USGS R SM 5.0 3.0 8.0 4/24/13 15:15 bkh, jo 552 UGSS R SM 1.0 1.7 1.5 4/29/13 22:45 bkh, cs 746 USGS R SM 6.0 2.4 12.1 4/29/13 23:05 bkh, cs 753 USGS R SM 3.0 2.6 6.1 5/13/13 22:20 bkh, ds 840 USGS R SM 4.0 2.5 9.1 5/13/13 22:45 bkh, ds 834 USGS F SM 3.0 2.7 6.7 6/25/13 14:35 bkh 670 USGS R R 6.0 4.0 10.8 7/4/13 7:50 ss 442 USGS F R 120 86 143 WY2014 1/29/14 19:15 bkh 195 USGS R R/S 3 2 2 1/30/14 8:00 bkh 420 USGS F R/S 30 15.3 34 2/8/14 22:20 bkh 542 USGS R R/S 34 35 50 2/9/14 13:30 bkh, pk 1220 USGS Peak/F R/S 100 52 329 2/9/14 13:45 bkh, pk 1230 USGS Peak/F R/S 98 41.3 325 2/10/14 8:50 bkh 834 USGS F R/S 17 22 38 3/6/14 9:00 bkh 769 USGS R R/S 24 9 50 8/8/14 12:00 bkh 209 USGS F R 6 7 3 8/8/14 15:00 bkh 206 USGS F R 52 46 29 10/7/14 11:30 bkh 64 USGS B -- 2 2 0.34 Notes Observer Key: ds = Dave Shaw, bkh = Brian Hastings, cs = Collin Strasenburgh, ss = Stefan Schuster of CDM Streamflow is the measured or 15-minute recorded flow when sediment was sampled, and usually differs from the daily streamflow. Streamflow Value Source: USGS gage #10344505, accessed online at USGS.gov on October 15, 2014 Stream Condition: R = rising, F = falling, B = baseflow, U = uncertain, S = steady Turbidity is the 15-minute recorded value when sediment was sampled; turbidity values in italics are estimates from laboratory analysis Suspended-sediment load (tons/day) is calculated by multiplying SSC by streamflow (cfs) and a conversion factor of 0.0027 Values are preliminary and subject to revision 212149 TURB-TT1 Obs Log_WY14.xlsx c2014 Balance Hydrologics, Inc. W a t e r Y e a r : 20 1 4 Fo r m 1 . A n n u a l S u s p e n d e d - S e d i m e n t L o a d R e c o r d W Y 20 1 4 S t r e a m : We s t M a r t i s C r e e k S t a t i o n : TU R B - M C 1 C o u n t y : Pl a c e r C o u n t y WY 2 0 1 4 D a i l y S u s p e n d e d - S e d i m e n t L o a d (t o n s ) WY 2 0 1 4 D a i l y S u s p e n d e d - S e d i m e n t L o a d (tons) St r e a m f l o w - b a s e d s e d i m e n t r a t i n g - c u r v e m e t h o d Co n t i n u o u s r e c o r d o f t u r b i d i t y DA Y OC T N O V D E C J A N F E B M A R A P R M A Y J U N J U L A U G S E P T DA Y OC T N O V D E C J A N F E B M A R A P R M A Y J U N J U L A U G S E P T 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 2 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 2 0 . 0 7 0 . 0 7 0 . 0 6 0 . 0 3 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 1 0 .0 0 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 3 0 . 0 3 0 . 0 2 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 0 2 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 2 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 2 0 . 0 4 0 . 0 6 0 . 0 5 0 . 0 3 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 2 0 .0 0 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 2 0 . 0 3 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 0 3 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 2 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 2 0 . 0 2 0 . 0 6 0 . 0 4 0 . 0 3 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 3 0 .0 0 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 2 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 2 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 4 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 2 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 2 0 . 0 7 0 . 0 6 0 . 0 4 0 . 0 3 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 4 0 .0 0 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 3 0 . 0 3 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 2 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 2 0 . 0 0 5 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 2 0 . 0 2 0 . 0 5 0 . 0 6 0 . 0 4 0 . 0 3 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 5 0 .0 0 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 2 0 . 0 3 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 0 6 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 2 0 . 0 2 0 . 0 2 0 . 1 3 0 . 0 4 0 . 0 4 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 6 0 .0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 1 7 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 2 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 0 7 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 2 0 . 0 2 0 . 0 5 0 . 0 9 0 . 0 4 0 . 0 3 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 7 0 .0 0 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 3 0 . 0 5 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 0 8 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 2 0 . 0 2 0 . 4 3 0 . 0 8 0 . 0 5 0 . 0 2 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 8 0 .0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 1 2 . 3 4 0 . 0 3 0 . 0 2 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 9 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 2 0 . 8 4 0 . 0 7 0 . 0 5 0 . 0 3 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 9 0 .0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 1 2 . 0 1 0 . 0 2 0 . 0 3 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 10 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 2 0 . 0 2 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 8 0 . 0 6 0 . 0 3 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 1 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 1 0 . 5 2 0 . 0 2 0 . 0 3 0 . 0 2 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 11 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 2 0 . 0 2 0 . 1 3 0 . 0 7 0 . 0 6 0 . 0 3 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 1 1 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 2 0 . 1 4 0 . 0 2 0 . 0 4 0 . 0 2 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 12 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 2 0 . 0 2 0 . 1 0 0 . 0 6 0 . 0 6 0 . 0 3 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 1 2 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 8 0 . 0 2 0 . 0 4 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 13 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 2 0 . 0 2 0 . 0 9 0 . 0 5 0 . 0 5 0 . 0 2 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 1 3 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 6 0 . 0 2 0 . 0 4 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 14 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 2 0 . 0 2 0 . 0 8 0 . 0 5 0 . 0 5 0 . 0 2 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 1 4 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 5 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 4 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 15 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 2 0 . 0 2 0 . 0 7 0 . 0 5 0 . 0 4 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 1 5 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 4 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 2 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 16 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 2 0 . 0 2 0 . 0 8 0 . 0 5 0 . 0 4 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 1 6 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 5 0 . 0 2 0 . 0 2 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 1 17 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 2 0 . 0 2 0 . 0 7 0 . 0 5 0 . 0 5 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 1 7 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 3 0 . 0 2 0 . 0 4 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 1 18 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 2 0 . 0 2 0 . 0 7 0 . 0 5 0 . 0 7 0 . 0 2 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 1 8 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 3 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 5 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 1 19 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 2 0 . 0 2 0 . 0 5 0 . 0 4 0 . 0 5 0 . 0 2 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 1 9 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 2 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 4 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 0 20 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 2 0 . 0 2 0 . 0 2 0 . 0 4 0 . 0 4 0 . 0 6 0 . 0 3 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 2 2 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 4 0 . 0 3 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 21 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 2 0 . 0 2 0 . 0 2 0 . 0 4 0 . 0 4 0 . 0 5 0 . 0 2 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 2 2 1 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 3 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 1 22 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 2 0 . 0 2 0 . 0 4 0 . 0 4 0 . 0 4 0 . 0 2 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 2 2 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 2 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 1 23 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 2 0 . 0 2 0 . 0 4 0 . 0 3 0 . 0 3 0 . 0 2 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 2 3 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 2 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 24 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 2 0 . 0 2 0 . 0 4 0 . 0 3 0 . 0 3 0 . 0 2 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 2 4 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 3 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 1 25 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 2 0 . 0 2 0 . 0 3 0 . 0 4 0 . 0 6 0 . 0 2 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 2 5 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 4 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 0 26 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 2 0 . 0 2 0 . 0 4 0 . 0 4 0 . 0 7 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 2 6 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 4 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 27 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 2 0 . 0 2 0 . 0 9 0 . 0 5 0 . 0 6 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 2 7 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 8 0 . 0 2 0 . 0 3 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 1 28 0 . 0 2 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 2 0 . 0 2 0 . 0 8 0 . 0 4 0 . 0 5 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 2 8 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 3 0 . 0 4 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 2 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 1 29 0 . 0 2 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 2 0 . 0 7 0 . 0 7 0 . 0 3 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 2 9 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 1 0 . 3 8 0 . 0 5 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 1 30 0 . 0 2 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 2 0 . 0 5 0 . 0 8 0 . 0 3 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 2 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 Qs s 30 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 1 0 . 1 3 0 . 0 5 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 2 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 1 Qss 31 0 . 0 2 0 . 0 2 0 . 0 3 0 . 0 8 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 An n u a l 31 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 2 0 . 0 3 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 0 Annual TO T A L 0 . 5 0 . 4 0 . 6 0 . 7 3 . 1 1 . 8 1 . 4 0 . 7 0 . 3 0 . 3 0 . 2 0 . 3 10 . 3 TO T A L 0 . 1 0 . 1 0 . 0 0 . 8 5 . 7 0 . 7 0 . 7 0 . 3 0 . 1 0 . 1 0 . 2 0 . 2 9.2 Ma x . d a y 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 1 0 . 8 0 . 1 0 . 1 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0. 8 Ma x . d a y 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 4 2 . 3 0 . 2 0 . 1 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 2.3 Da i l y v a l u e s a r e b a s e d o n c a l c u l a t i o n s o f s u s p e n d e d -s e d i m e n t l o a d a t 1 5 - m i n u t e i n t e r v a l s . St r e a m f l o w - b a s e d s u s p e n d e d - s e d i m e n t l o a d c o m p u t a t i o n u s e s a c o r r e l a t i o n b e t w e e n s t r e a m f l o w a n d s u s p e n d ed - s e d i m e n t c o n c e n t r a t i o n a n d i s b a s e d o n a p r o v i s i on a l s t r e a m f l o w r e c o r d Tu r b i d i t y - b a s e d s u s p e n d e d - s e d i m e n t l o a d c o m p u t a t i o n u s e s a c o r r e l a t i o n b e t w e e n i n s t a n t a n e o u s t u r b i d i t y ( N T U ) a n d s u s p e n d e d - s e d i m e n t c o n c e n t r a t i o n ( m g / L ) an d i s c o n v e r t e d t o t o n s / d a y Ba l a n c e H y d r o l o g i c s , I n c . P O B o x 1 0 7 7 , T r u c k e e , C A 9 6 1 6 1 , ( 5 3 0 ) 5 5 0 - 9 7 7 6 , B e r k e l e y , C A ( m a i n o f f i c e ) (5 1 0 ) 7 0 4 - 1 0 0 0 21 2 0 8 6 T U R B - M C 1 A n n u a l s e d i m e n t _ W Y 1 4 . x l s x , A p p e n d i x F ©2013 Balance Hydrologics, Inc. W a t e r Y e a r : 20 1 4 Fo r m 2 . A n n u a l S u s p e n d e d - S e d i m e n t L o a d R e c o r d W Y 2 01 4 S t r e a m : Ma r t i s C r e e k S t a t i o n : TU R B - M C 2 C o u n t y : Pl a c e r C o u n t y WY 2 0 1 4 D a i l y S u s p e n d e d - S e d i m e n t L o a d (t o n s ) WY 2 0 1 4 D a i l y S u s p e n d e d - S e d i m e n t L o a d (tons) St r e a m f l o w - b a s e d s e d i m e n t r a t i n g - c u r v e m e t h o d Co n t i n u o u s r e c o r d o f t u r b i d i t y DA Y OC T N O V D E C J A N F E B M A R A P R M A Y J U N J U L A U G S E P T DA Y OC T N O V D E C J A N F E B M A R A P R M A Y J U N J U L A U G S E P T 1 0 . 0 4 0 . 0 2 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 3 0 . 0 9 0 . 0 8 0 . 0 4 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 1 0 . 0 2 0 .0 1 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 9 0 . 0 6 0 . 0 4 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 2 0 . 0 4 0 . 0 2 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 4 0 . 0 8 0 . 0 7 0 . 0 3 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 2 0 . 0 2 0 .0 1 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 7 0 . 0 5 0 . 0 4 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 3 0 . 0 4 0 . 0 2 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 2 0 . 0 8 0 . 0 6 0 . 0 3 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 3 0 . 0 2 0 .0 1 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 6 0 . 0 5 0 . 0 4 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 4 0 . 0 4 0 . 0 3 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 2 0 . 0 9 0 . 0 6 0 . 0 3 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 2 0 . 0 1 4 0 . 0 1 0 .0 1 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 2 0 . 0 6 0 . 0 4 0 . 0 7 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 3 0 . 0 1 5 0 . 0 3 0 . 0 2 0 . 0 2 0 . 0 3 0 . 0 8 0 . 0 6 0 . 0 3 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 2 0 . 0 1 5 0 . 0 1 0 .0 1 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 2 0 . 0 6 0 . 0 4 0 . 0 4 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 2 0 . 0 1 6 0 . 0 3 0 . 0 2 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 2 0 . 2 2 0 . 0 6 0 . 0 3 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 6 0 . 0 1 0 .0 1 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 1 0 . 3 0 0 . 0 5 0 . 0 3 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 7 0 . 0 3 0 . 0 3 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 2 0 . 1 4 0 . 0 6 0 . 0 3 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 7 0 . 0 1 0 .0 2 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 1 3 0 . 0 4 0 . 0 4 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 8 0 . 0 2 0 . 0 3 0 . 0 1 0 . 3 1 0 . 1 1 0 . 0 6 0 . 0 3 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 8 0 . 0 1 0 .0 1 0 . 0 1 4 . 7 3 0 . 1 3 0 . 0 4 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 9 0 . 0 2 0 . 0 3 0 . 0 1 1 . 7 3 0 . 1 0 0 . 0 6 0 . 0 3 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 9 0 . 0 1 0 .0 1 0 . 0 1 5 . 6 7 0 . 2 1 0 . 0 4 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 10 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 2 0 . 0 4 0 . 0 1 0 . 6 2 0 . 1 1 0 . 0 6 0 . 0 3 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 1 0 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 2 0 . 0 1 1 . 9 0 0 . 2 5 0 . 0 4 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 11 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 3 0 . 0 2 0 . 2 0 0 . 1 0 0 . 0 6 0 . 0 3 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 1 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 3 0 . 5 3 0 . 1 6 0 . 0 5 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 12 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 2 0 . 0 1 0 . 1 1 0 . 0 8 0 . 0 6 0 . 0 3 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 1 2 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 2 4 0 . 1 3 0 . 0 5 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 13 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 2 0 . 0 2 0 . 1 0 0 . 0 7 0 . 0 5 0 . 0 3 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 1 3 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 2 0 . 1 8 0 . 0 6 0 . 0 5 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 14 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 2 0 . 1 0 0 . 0 7 0 . 0 5 0 . 0 2 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 1 4 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 1 6 0 . 0 4 0 . 0 5 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 15 0 . 0 2 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 2 0 . 0 8 0 . 0 6 0 . 0 5 0 . 0 3 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 1 5 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 1 2 0 . 0 4 0 . 0 3 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 16 0 . 0 2 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 2 0 . 1 0 0 . 0 6 0 . 0 5 0 . 0 2 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 1 6 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 1 3 0 . 0 4 0 . 0 4 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 17 0 . 0 2 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 2 0 . 0 2 0 . 0 8 0 . 0 6 0 . 0 5 0 . 0 2 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 1 7 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 2 0 . 1 0 0 . 0 3 0 . 0 4 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 18 0 . 0 2 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 2 0 . 0 2 0 . 0 7 0 . 0 6 0 . 0 5 0 . 0 2 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 1 8 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 8 0 . 0 4 0 . 0 4 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 19 0 . 0 2 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 2 0 . 0 2 0 . 0 6 0 . 0 5 0 . 0 5 0 . 0 2 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 1 9 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 2 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 6 0 . 0 3 0 . 0 3 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 20 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 2 0 . 0 2 0 . 0 2 0 . 0 5 0 . 0 5 0 . 0 5 0 . 0 3 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 2 0 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 5 0 . 0 3 0 . 0 4 0 . 0 3 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 21 0 . 0 2 0 . 0 2 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 2 0 . 0 5 0 . 0 5 0 . 0 4 0 . 0 3 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 2 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 4 0 . 0 3 0 . 0 9 0 . 0 2 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 22 0 . 0 2 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 2 0 . 0 5 0 . 0 5 0 . 0 5 0 . 0 3 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 2 2 0 . 0 2 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 2 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 4 0 . 0 3 0 . 0 6 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 23 0 . 0 4 0 . 0 2 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 2 0 . 0 4 0 . 0 5 0 . 0 4 0 . 0 2 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 2 3 0 . 0 2 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 4 0 . 0 3 0 . 0 3 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 24 0 . 0 4 0 . 0 2 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 4 0 . 0 4 0 . 0 4 0 . 0 2 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 2 4 0 . 0 2 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 6 0 . 0 3 0 . 0 4 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 25 0 . 0 3 0 . 0 3 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 4 0 . 0 4 0 . 0 6 0 . 0 2 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 2 5 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 6 0 . 0 2 0 . 0 6 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 26 0 . 0 3 0 . 0 2 0 . 0 2 0 . 0 2 0 . 0 4 0 . 0 5 0 . 0 6 0 . 0 2 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 2 6 0 . 0 2 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 3 0 . 0 3 0 . 0 5 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 2 0 . 0 1 27 0 . 0 3 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 2 0 . 1 1 0 . 0 5 0 . 0 5 0 . 0 2 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 2 2 7 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 0 0 . 1 3 0 . 0 3 0 . 0 4 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 2 28 0 . 0 4 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 1 0 0 . 0 5 0 . 0 5 0 . 0 2 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 2 2 8 0 . 0 2 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 0 0 . 1 1 0 . 0 3 0 . 0 5 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 29 0 . 0 4 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 2 0 . 0 8 0 . 0 4 0 . 0 2 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 2 9 0 . 0 2 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 6 0 . 0 4 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 30 0 . 0 4 0 . 0 2 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 4 0 . 1 0 0 . 0 4 0 . 0 2 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 Qs s 30 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 9 0 . 0 3 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 Qss 31 0 . 0 4 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 2 0 . 0 9 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 An n u a l 31 0 . 0 2 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 7 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 Annual TO T A L 0 . 5 0 . 6 0 . 6 0 . 5 4 . 3 2 . 4 1 . 6 0 . 8 0 . 2 0 . 2 0 . 3 0 . 3 12 TO T A L 0 . 3 0 . 3 0 . 3 0 . 2 1 4 . 5 2 . 4 1 . 3 0 . 5 0 . 1 0 . 2 0 . 3 0 . 3 21 Ma x . d a y 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 1 . 7 0 . 2 0 . 1 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 1. 7 Ma x . d a y 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 5 . 7 0 . 3 0 . 1 0 . 1 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 6 Da i l y v a l u e s a r e b a s e d o n c a l c u l a t i o n s o f s u s p e n d e d -s e d i m e n t l o a d a t 1 5 - m i n u t e i n t e r v a l s . St r e a m f l o w - b a s e d s u s p e n d e d - s e d i m e n t l o a d c o m p u t a t i o n u s e s a c o r r e l a t i o n b e t w e e n s t r e a m f l o w a n d s u s p e n d ed - s e d i m e n t c o n c e n t r a t i o n a n d i s b a s e d o n a p r o v i s i on a l s t r e a m f l o w r e c o r d Tu r b i d i t y - b a s e d s u s p e n d e d - s e d i m e n t l o a d c o m p u t a t i o n u s e s a c o r r e l a t i o n b e t w e e n i n s t a n t a n e o u s t u r b i d i t y ( N T U ) a n d s u s p e n d e d - s e d i m e n t c o n c e n t r a t i o n ( m g / L ) an d i s c o n v e r t e d t o t o n s / d a y Ba l a n c e H y d r o l o g i c s , I n c . P O B o x 1 0 7 7 , T r u c k e e , C A 9 6 1 6 1 , ( 5 3 0 ) 5 5 0 - 9 7 7 6 , B e r k e l e y , C A ( m a i n o f f i c e ) (5 1 0 ) 7 0 4 - 1 0 0 0 21 2 0 8 6 T U R B - M C 2 A n n u a l s e d i m e n t _ W Y 1 4 . x l s x , A p p e n d i x F ©2013 Balance Hydrologics, Inc. W a t e r Y e a r : 20 1 4 Fo r m 3 . A n n u a l S u s p e n d e d - S e d i m e n t L o a d R e c o r d W Y 2 0 1 4 S t r e a m : Tr u c k e e R i v e r a b o v e T o w n o f T r u c k e e S t a t i o n : TU R B - M S 3 C o u n t y : Pl a c e r C o u n t y WY 2 0 1 4 D a i l y S u s p e n d e d - S e d i m e n t L o a d (t o n s ) WY 2 0 1 4 D a i l y S u s p e n d e d - S e d i m e n t L o a d (tons) St r e a m f l o w - b a s e d s e d i m e n t r a t i n g - c u r v e m e t h o d Co n t i n u o u s r e c o r d o f t u r b i d i t y DA Y OC T N O V D E C J A N F E B M A R A P R M A Y J U N J U L A U G S E P T DA Y OC T N O V D E C J A N F E B M A R A P R M A Y J U N J U L A U G S E P T 1 0 . 0 9 0 . 1 3 0 . 2 9 0 . 0 9 0 . 0 8 0 . 2 6 0 . 1 9 0 . 4 6 2 . 4 0 1 . 7 7 0 . 4 3 0 . 0 8 1 0 . 1 3 0 . 1 7 0 . 1 8 0 . 2 1 0 . 1 7 1 . 2 2 1 . 0 6 0 . 5 7 1 . 9 8 3 . 6 4 1 . 7 7 0 . 4 2 2 0 . 0 8 0 . 1 3 0 . 2 7 0 . 0 9 0 . 1 0 0 . 2 9 0 . 1 7 0 . 6 3 2 . 3 3 1 . 6 1 0 . 3 9 0 . 0 8 2 0 . 1 9 0 . 1 9 0 . 2 4 0 . 1 4 0 . 1 2 2 . 4 1 1 . 0 3 0 . 7 9 1 . 9 8 3 . 5 1 1 . 3 0 0 . 7 5 3 0 . 0 8 0 . 1 3 0. 2 6 0. 0 9 0 . 1 0 0 . 4 1 0 . 1 7 0 . 7 8 2 . 2 8 1 . 6 0 0 . 3 5 0 . 0 8 3 0 . 2 1 0 . 1 7 0 . 2 3 0 . 0 8 0 . 1 1 1 . 1 0 0 . 6 4 3 . 3 3 3 . 1 8 1 . 4 2 0 . 7 1 0 . 3 7 4 0 . 0 8 0 . 1 2 0. 2 5 0. 0 9 0 . 0 9 0 . 5 4 0 . 1 7 0 . 8 6 2 . 4 0 1 . 5 0 0 . 3 7 0 . 0 7 4 0 . 3 7 0 . 1 7 0. 2 2 0. 0 7 0 . 1 3 0 . 6 0 0 . 2 4 2 . 2 2 3 . 1 9 1 . 4 1 0 . 7 4 0 . 2 7 5 0 . 0 8 0 . 1 2 0. 2 3 0. 0 9 0 . 0 9 0 . 5 4 0 . 1 7 0 . 9 5 2 . 6 3 1 . 4 6 0 . 3 8 0 . 0 7 5 0 . 2 1 0 . 1 7 0. 2 1 0. 0 7 0 . 1 2 0 . 5 2 0 . 2 5 2 . 7 7 3 . 0 1 1 . 7 9 0 . 7 8 0 . 1 9 6 0 . 0 8 0 . 1 2 0. 2 2 0. 0 9 0 . 0 9 3 . 3 9 0 . 2 0 1 . 2 1 2 . 6 3 1 . 3 5 0 . 3 7 0 . 0 7 6 0 . 1 0 0 . 1 7 0. 2 0 0. 0 7 0 . 1 0 7 . 2 6 0 . 2 9 4 . 3 8 3 . 0 0 2 . 0 8 0 . 8 2 0 . 2 3 7 0 . 0 8 0 . 1 2 0. 2 1 0. 0 9 0 . 0 9 0 . 5 4 0 . 2 8 1 . 2 8 2 . 6 1 1 . 3 5 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 7 7 0 . 0 7 0 . 1 7 0. 1 9 0. 0 7 0 . 1 0 0 . 7 3 0 . 4 3 2 . 5 4 3 . 0 0 1 . 8 8 0 . 8 3 0.25 8 0 . 0 8 0 . 1 2 0. 1 9 0. 0 9 8 . 7 5 0 . 3 0 0 . 4 2 1 . 6 2 2 . 5 8 1 . 3 3 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 7 8 0 . 0 8 0 . 1 7 0. 1 8 0. 0 6 1 9 . 1 0 0 . 4 1 0 . 5 7 1 . 0 1 2 . 9 9 1 . 8 7 1 . 0 5 0 . 3 7 9 0 . 0 8 0 . 1 2 0. 1 8 0. 0 9 4 1 . 3 1 0 . 2 3 0 . 5 6 2 . 9 6 2 . 6 0 1 . 3 0 0 . 2 8 0 . 0 6 9 0 . 0 8 0 . 1 7 0. 1 7 0. 0 6 7 4 . 4 6 0 . 3 9 0 . 8 8 2 . 0 1 2 . 4 9 1 . 8 6 0 . 8 4 0 . 2 1 10 0 . 0 8 0 . 1 3 0. 1 7 0. 0 8 7 . 4 8 0 . 2 5 0 . 6 6 2 . 3 8 2 . 6 9 1 . 2 0 0 . 2 6 0 . 0 6 1 0 0 . 0 9 0 . 1 7 0. 1 6 0. 0 6 1 0 . 5 1 0 . 5 8 0 . 8 9 1 . 2 7 2 . 4 5 1 . 8 2 1 . 1 4 0 . 1 4 11 0 . 0 8 0 . 1 5 0. 1 5 0. 0 9 0 . 5 3 0 . 1 9 0 . 7 2 1 . 5 1 3 . 0 2 1 . 1 7 0 . 2 8 0 . 0 6 1 1 0 . 0 9 0 . 1 7 0. 1 5 0. 2 0 1 . 6 4 0 . 8 8 1 . 1 0 0 . 8 5 1 . 9 3 1 . 4 8 1 . 5 8 0 . 1 9 12 0 . 0 8 0 . 1 5 0. 1 4 0. 0 8 0 . 2 2 0 . 1 4 0 . 8 6 1 . 4 0 3 . 5 3 1 . 0 6 0 . 2 9 0 . 0 6 1 2 0 . 0 9 0 . 1 6 0. 1 4 0. 1 3 0 . 7 3 1 . 4 2 1 . 0 0 1 . 2 8 2 . 3 8 1 . 2 2 0 . 8 4 0 . 2 0 13 0 . 0 8 0 . 1 5 0 . 1 3 0 . 0 8 0 . 2 0 0 . 1 2 0 . 7 3 1 . 5 2 3 . 6 0 1 . 0 6 0 . 2 4 0 . 0 5 1 3 0 . 1 1 0 . 1 6 0 . 1 3 0 . 0 7 0 . 8 1 1 . 0 4 0 . 8 3 1 . 8 0 1 . 8 4 1 . 3 1 0 . 7 6 0 . 1 5 14 0 . 0 8 0 . 3 0 0 . 1 1 0 . 0 8 0 . 3 5 0 . 1 1 0 . 5 8 1 . 7 5 3 . 7 7 0 . 9 8 0 . 2 0 0 . 0 5 1 4 0 . 0 9 0 . 7 1 0 . 1 3 0 . 0 6 0 . 7 5 1 . 5 8 0 . 7 1 2 . 4 9 1 . 9 4 2 . 4 0 1 . 0 6 0 . 1 2 15 0 . 0 8 0 . 9 9 0 . 1 1 0 . 0 8 0 . 2 1 0 . 1 1 0 . 6 8 2 . 2 8 3 . 9 7 0 . 9 4 0 . 1 7 0 . 0 5 1 5 0 . 0 7 1 . 1 8 0 . 1 4 0 . 0 6 0 . 4 3 0 . 4 9 1 . 0 3 1 . 7 0 3 . 0 2 0 . 7 2 1 . 0 9 0 . 1 3 16 0 . 0 8 0 . 9 3 0 . 1 1 0 . 0 8 0 . 1 6 0 . 1 1 0 . 8 2 2 . 2 9 3 . 7 2 0 . 9 1 0 . 1 6 0 . 0 5 1 6 0 . 1 2 0 . 7 7 0 . 2 1 0 . 0 5 0 . 4 6 0 . 4 6 1 . 8 6 1 . 9 1 3 . 9 0 1 . 1 8 1 . 0 6 0 . 1 3 17 0 . 0 9 0 . 8 9 0 . 1 1 0 . 0 8 0 . 1 1 0 . 1 3 1 . 1 0 1 . 8 4 4 . 0 3 1 1 . 2 1 0 . 1 5 0 . 0 5 1 7 0 . 1 3 0 . 5 0 0 . 1 9 0 . 0 6 0 . 3 6 0 . 5 1 2 . 4 6 1 . 4 0 3 . 9 4 2 2 . 7 3 1 . 0 5 0 . 1 4 18 0 . 0 9 0 . 8 1 0 . 1 1 0 . 0 8 0 . 1 0 0 . 1 1 2 . 0 2 1 . 5 7 3 . 7 7 1 . 0 8 0 . 1 3 0 . 0 4 1 8 0 . 1 6 0 . 3 6 0 . 1 1 0 . 0 5 0 . 2 5 0 . 2 1 2 . 5 5 1 . 3 7 3 . 0 6 1 0 . 7 7 0 . 7 3 0 . 1 2 19 0 . 0 9 0 . 7 0 0. 1 0 0. 0 8 0 . 0 8 0 . 0 9 1 . 2 5 1 . 3 5 3 . 4 6 0 . 9 7 0 . 1 2 0 . 0 4 1 9 0 . 1 1 0 . 3 4 0. 1 0 0. 0 5 0 . 1 6 0 . 2 0 1 . 2 5 1 . 9 3 3 . 8 8 2 . 0 8 0 . 5 3 0 . 0 9 20 0 . 0 9 0 . 8 3 0. 0 9 0. 0 8 0 . 0 8 0 . 1 1 0 . 9 9 1 . 2 8 3 . 4 4 0 . 9 7 0 . 1 1 0 . 0 4 2 0 0 . 1 0 0 . 3 6 0. 1 0 0. 0 8 0 . 1 6 0 . 2 6 1 . 0 0 1 . 6 7 2 . 6 0 1 . 9 5 0 . 5 2 0 . 1 1 21 0 . 0 9 0 . 9 2 0 . 0 8 0 . 0 8 0 . 1 3 0 . 1 8 0 . 8 0 1 . 0 9 3 . 0 5 1 . 1 8 0 . 0 9 0 . 0 4 2 1 0 . 1 0 0 . 3 7 0 . 1 0 0 . 0 5 0 . 2 2 0 . 2 9 0 . 6 7 0 . 6 5 2 . 5 1 1 . 5 0 0 . 6 0 0 . 1 0 22 0 . 0 9 1 . 2 6 0 . 0 7 0 . 0 8 0 . 1 9 0 . 1 7 0 . 7 3 1 . 3 2 2 . 8 6 1 . 0 0 0 . 0 8 0 . 0 2 2 2 0 . 1 1 0 . 4 0 0 . 1 0 0 . 0 5 0 . 2 1 0 . 3 1 0 . 5 7 1 . 1 0 2 . 4 6 1 . 4 1 0 . 8 2 0 . 0 4 23 0 . 1 0 0 . 8 1 0 . 0 7 0 . 0 8 0 . 1 9 0 . 1 7 0 . 4 9 2 . 2 0 2 . 6 9 0 . 8 3 0 . 0 9 0. 0 2 23 0 . 1 5 0 . 3 8 0 . 1 1 0 . 0 8 0 . 2 1 0 . 4 0 0 . 4 1 1 . 8 9 2 . 4 2 1 . 3 3 0 . 6 0 0 . 0 4 24 0 . 1 2 0 . 4 8 0 . 0 7 0 . 0 8 0 . 1 8 0 . 1 8 0 . 4 2 2 . 4 8 2 . 6 1 0 . 7 5 0 . 0 9 0 . 0 2 2 4 0 . 1 6 0 . 2 8 0 . 1 1 0 . 1 9 0 . 7 7 0 . 4 3 0 . 5 1 3 . 2 8 2 . 4 0 1 . 6 9 0 . 5 7 0 . 0 4 25 0 . 1 2 0 . 4 1 0 . 0 6 0 . 0 7 0 . 1 8 0 . 1 9 0 . 5 6 2 . 8 5 2 . 4 5 0 . 6 8 0 . 0 9 0 . 0 3 2 5 0 . 1 8 0 . 2 1 0 . 0 8 0 . 1 2 0 . 2 3 0 . 4 7 0 . 6 6 3 . 9 0 1 . 8 6 1 . 5 9 0 . 5 6 0 . 1 0 26 0 . 1 2 0 . 3 9 0 . 0 6 0 . 0 7 0 . 1 9 0 . 1 9 0 . 4 2 . 7 2 2 . 0 2 0 . 6 2 0 . 0 9 0 . 0 3 2 6 0 . 2 0 0 . 2 1 0 . 0 8 0 . 1 2 0 . 3 4 0 . 6 7 0 . 6 0 2 . 6 6 1 . 4 5 1 . 1 7 0 . 4 9 0.08 27 0 . 1 3 0 . 3 8 0 . 0 7 0 . 0 7 0 . 3 2 0 . 1 7 0 . 3 6 1 . 8 8 2 . 0 9 0 . 5 6 0 . 0 9 0 . 0 4 2 7 0 . 1 5 0 . 2 0 0 . 0 8 0 . 0 8 1 . 1 8 0 . 5 1 1 . 4 1 2 . 9 3 1 . 3 8 1 . 1 8 0 . 3 2 0 . 0 7 28 0 . 1 4 0 . 3 5 0 . 0 9 0 . 0 7 0 . 2 7 0 . 1 5 0 . 3 4 1 . 6 4 1 . 8 5 0 . 5 3 0 . 0 9 0 . 0 4 2 8 0 . 1 5 0 . 1 9 0 . 0 9 0 . 0 5 0 . 8 1 0 . 3 6 0 . 9 9 1 . 6 9 1 . 6 2 1 . 4 7 0 . 5 6 0 . 1 1 29 0 . 1 3 0 . 3 3 0 . 0 9 4 . 5 2 0 . 2 7 0 . 3 6 1 . 6 2 1 . 8 6 0 . 5 0 0 . 0 9 0 . 0 4 2 9 0 . 1 5 0 . 1 9 0 . 0 9 3 . 6 3 1 . 0 3 0 . 4 6 1 . 4 8 2 . 2 0 1 . 2 6 0 . 9 6 0 . 1 3 30 0 . 1 3 0 . 3 1 0 . 1 0 1 1 . 4 9 0 . 2 5 0 . 3 9 2 . 2 5 1 . 7 4 0 . 4 8 0 . 0 9 0 . 0 4 Qs s 30 0 . 1 6 0 . 1 8 0 . 1 2 8 . 4 3 1 . 1 5 0 . 4 4 2 . 7 5 3 . 0 9 1 . 0 4 0 . 8 1 0 . 0 6 Qss 31 0 . 1 3 0 . 0 9 0 . 0 8 0 . 2 1 2 . 4 9 0 . 4 6 0 . 0 8 An n u a l 31 0 . 1 6 0 . 1 7 0 . 3 5 1 . 1 0 3 . 1 1 1 . 5 8 0 . 4 6 Annual TO T A L 2 . 9 1 2 . 7 4 . 3 1 8 6 1 . 9 1 0 1 8 5 2 8 5 4 2 . 4 6 . 3 1 . 5 31 5 TO T A L 4 9 . 0 4 . 5 1 5 1 1 4 . 6 2 9 2 7 6 3 7 7 8 2 . 4 2 5 . 9 5 . 3 457 Ma x . d a y 0 . 1 1 . 3 0 . 3 1 1 4 1 . 3 3 . 4 2 3 4 . 0 1 1 . 2 0 . 4 0 . 1 41 Ma x . d a y 0 . 4 1 . 2 0 . 2 8 7 4 . 5 7 3 4 4 2 2 . 7 1 . 8 0 . 7 23 Da i l y v a l u e s a r e b a s e d o n c a l c u l a t i o n s o f s u s p e n d e d - s e d i m e n t l o a d a t 1 5 - m i n u t e i n t e r v a l s . St r e a m f l o w - b a s e d s u s p e n d e d - s e d i m e n t l o a d c o m p u t a t i o n u s e s a c o r r e l a t i o n b e t w e e n s t r e a m f l o w a n d s u s p e n d e d - s e d i m e n t c o n c e n t r a t i o n a n d i s b a s e d o n a p r o v i s i o n a l s t r e a m f l o w r e c o r d Tu r b i d i t y - b a s e d s u s p e n d e d - s e d i m e n t l o a d c o m p u t a t i o n u s e s a c o r r e l a t i o n b e t w e e n i n s t a n t a n e o u s t u r b i d i t y ( N T U ) a n d s u s p e n d e d - s e d i m e n t c o n c e n t r a t i o n ( m g / L ) a n d i s c o n v e r t e d t o t o n s / d a y Da i l y s u s p e n d e d - s e d i m e n t l o a d v a l u e s i n i t a l i c s a r e i n t e r p o l a t e d f r o m a d j a c e n t d a t a Ba l a n c e H y d r o l o g i c s , I n c . P O B o x 1 0 7 7 , T r u c k e e , C A 9 6 1 6 1 , ( 5 3 0 ) 5 5 0 - 9 7 7 6 , B e r k e l e y , C A ( m a i n o f f i c e ) ( 5 1 0 ) 7 0 4 - 1 0 0 0 21 2 1 4 9 T U R B - M S 3 A n n u a l s e d i m e n t _ W Y 1 4 . x l s x , A p p e n d i x F ©2014 Balance Hydrologics, Inc. W a t e r Y e a r : 20 1 4 Fo r m 4 . A n n u a l S u s p e n d e d - S e d i m e n t L o a d R e c o r d W Y 2 0 1 4 S t r e a m : Tr u c k e e R i v e r a t B o c a B r i d g e S t a t i o n : TU R B - T T 1 C o u n t y : Ne v a d a C o u n t y WY 2 0 1 4 D a i l y S u s p e n d e d - S e d i m e n t L o a d (t o n s ) WY 2 0 1 4 D a i l y S u s p e n d e d - S e d i m e n t L o a d (tons) St r e a m f l o w - b a s e d s e d i m e n t r a t i n g - c u r v e m e t h o d Co n t i n u o u s r e c o r d o f t u r b i d i t y DA Y OC T N O V D E C J A N F E B M A R A P R M A Y J U N J U L A U G S E P T DA Y OC T N O V D E C J A N F E B M A R A P R M A Y J U N J U L A U G S E P T 1 2 . 0 6 1 . 7 4 1 . 8 5 1 . 3 5 3 . 2 3 1 2 . 2 5 2 . 0 7 6 . 0 4 3 . 6 0 2 . 3 1 0 . 9 3 0 . 7 4 1 2 . 1 0 1 . 5 8 1 . 3 2 1 . 0 1 . 2 1 3 . 3 3 . 5 5 . 9 4 . 4 2.3 2.4 1.2 2 1 . 9 0 1 . 7 6 1 . 8 6 1 . 3 5 3 . 0 8 1 2 . 0 3 1 . 9 4 6 . 4 1 3 . 1 0 2 . 2 7 0 . 8 9 0 . 7 3 2 2 . 0 5 1 . 7 0 1 . 3 5 1 . 0 1 . 8 8 . 8 3 . 7 8 . 5 1 3 . 3 1 . 9 1 . 7 1 . 1 3 1 . 9 2 1 . 7 5 1 . 8 5 1 . 3 4 3 . 3 7 1 4 . 4 3 1 . 9 3 6 . 0 5 3 . 0 3 2 . 3 6 0 . 9 0 0 . 7 4 3 2 . 1 8 1 . 9 1 1 . 4 8 1 . 0 1 . 7 6 . 7 5 . 7 5 . 9 9 . 0 2.5 1.8 1.2 4 1 . 9 3 1 . 7 6 1 . 8 8 1 . 3 3 3 . 4 5 1 6 . 3 2 2 . 0 5 5 . 8 0 3 . 1 1 2 . 3 6 0 . 9 6 0 . 7 1 4 2 . 2 7 1 . 7 8 1 . 5 2 1 . 0 1 . 9 3 . 7 4 . 6 5 . 6 3 . 0 3.5 2.2 1.4 5 1 . 9 0 1 . 8 2 1 . 8 4 1 . 3 1 3 . 2 9 1 6 . 4 3 2 . 0 9 5 . 6 1 3 . 0 6 2 . 3 3 1 . 0 0 0 . 6 3 5 2 . 1 3 1 . 8 3 1 . 4 1 1 . 0 1 . 3 3 . 5 6 . 4 5 . 2 2 . 6 4.2 2.3 1.1 6 1 . 8 9 1 . 8 4 1 . 6 5 1 . 2 9 3 . 2 6 3 8 . 5 0 2 . 1 5 5 . 3 9 3 . 0 6 2 . 3 5 1 . 0 7 0 . 5 8 6 2 . 5 8 1 . 9 9 1 . 2 6 0 . 9 1 . 3 1 4 . 7 2 . 6 4 . 8 5 . 7 4.1 1.9 1.3 7 1 . 8 9 1 . 8 4 1 . 5 7 1 . 2 8 3 . 2 7 2 0 . 3 5 2 . 3 7 5 . 2 1 3 . 0 1 2 . 4 0 1 . 0 2 0 . 5 5 7 5 . 2 2 1 . 9 5 1 . 2 9 0 . 9 1 . 3 5 . 0 3 . 0 4 . 1 4.9 3.8 1.8 1.1 8 1 . 8 8 1 . 8 3 1 . 5 5 1 . 2 7 8 . 1 6 1 4 . 7 7 2 . 5 6 5 . 6 0 2 . 9 9 2 . 4 0 1 4 . 5 9 0 . 5 3 8 3 . 7 2 1 . 9 6 1 . 2 0 0 . 9 1 4 . 5 4 . 0 3 . 7 4 . 7 4.1 2.4 11.5 1.0 9 1 . 8 6 1 . 8 3 1 . 5 2 1 . 2 5 1 5 2 . 9 7 1 3 . 1 0 2 . 6 8 7 . 0 4 2 . 9 9 2 . 3 8 5 . 7 9 0 . 5 1 9 2 . 1 4 2 . 1 8 2 . 7 4 0 . 9 1 6 2 . 4 3 . 4 4 . 6 7 . 4 3 . 3 2.1 3.7 0.9 10 1 . 8 6 1 . 8 2 1 . 3 3 1 . 2 6 7 5 . 8 2 1 3 . 5 0 2 . 9 5 6 . 0 6 3 . 0 0 2 . 3 5 0 . 9 9 0 . 4 9 1 0 2 . 1 1 2 . 3 9 1 . 2 0 1 . 0 4 1 . 9 4 . 1 5 . 2 6 . 5 5 . 1 2.5 2.2 0.9 11 1 . 8 4 1 . 8 6 0 . 8 0 1 . 2 9 1 8 . 3 8 3 . 2 2 3 . 0 8 4 . 9 5 3 . 0 0 2 . 3 6 1 . 0 0 0 . 5 2 1 1 2 . 0 6 2 . 2 1 1 . 1 1 1 . 8 1 1 . 8 4 . 1 4 . 8 4 . 6 5 . 4 2 . 1 2 . 2 1 . 4 12 1 . 8 5 1 . 8 2 0 . 8 3 1 . 2 8 1 3 . 8 3 1 . 9 2 3 . 0 8 5 . 1 8 2 . 9 9 2 . 3 0 1 . 0 2 0 . 5 0 1 2 2 . 5 6 1 . 6 7 1 . 0 2 1 . 4 1 0 . 7 3 . 3 6 . 6 4 . 4 5 . 2 4 . 1 2 . 1 1 . 0 13 1 . 8 4 1 . 8 4 0 . 8 1 1 . 1 8 1 1 . 2 2 1 . 9 3 2 . 9 6 5 . 5 0 3 . 0 0 2 . 3 6 0 . 9 7 0 . 5 0 1 3 2 . 6 0 2 . 1 7 0 . 6 1 0 . 9 1 0 . 2 3 . 6 1 4 . 3 6 . 0 1 . 9 5 . 8 1 . 7 1 . 1 14 1 . 8 5 1 . 8 6 0 . 7 9 1 . 1 4 1 5 . 1 2 1 . 9 4 2 . 7 3 5 . 5 8 3 . 0 1 2 . 3 4 0 . 9 7 0 . 4 9 1 4 2 . 1 0 1 . 6 6 0 . 6 2 0 . 9 6 . 8 3 . 3 9 . 8 5 . 4 2 . 8 5 . 6 1 . 7 0 . 9 15 1 . 8 4 1 . 9 0 0 . 7 8 1 . 1 2 1 2 . 2 2 1 . 9 1 2 . 8 2 5 . 8 3 3 . 1 0 2 . 3 8 0 . 9 5 0 . 4 8 1 5 1 . 9 0 2 . 4 7 0 . 9 6 0 . 9 7 . 7 3 . 5 3 9 . 1 3 7 . 3 2 . 0 6 . 4 1 . 9 0 . 9 16 1 . 8 2 1 . 8 3 0 . 7 7 1 . 1 1 1 0 . 6 2 1 . 9 1 3 . 3 1 5 . 6 8 3 . 0 0 2 . 3 7 0 . 9 2 0 . 4 5 1 6 2 . 1 2 1 . 9 7 0 . 7 6 0 . 9 5 . 2 3 . 3 3 2 . 8 1 2 . 2 1 . 3 4 . 9 2 . 0 0 . 9 17 1 . 8 5 1 . 8 5 0 . 7 7 1 . 1 1 9 . 4 1 1 . 9 6 3 . 5 4 5 . 1 0 3 . 1 8 2 . 4 0 0 . 9 0 0 . 4 6 1 7 2 . 1 2 1 . 9 1 0 . 6 3 0 . 8 3 . 5 3 . 1 7 9 . 4 5 . 6 2 . 3 6 . 5 1 . 9 0 . 9 18 1 . 8 8 1 . 8 6 0 . 7 7 1 . 1 1 9 . 3 6 1 . 9 3 4 . 0 7 4 . 9 5 3 . 0 7 2 . 3 8 0 . 8 9 0 . 4 3 1 8 2 . 0 7 1 . 6 5 0 . 6 6 0 . 9 3 . 9 3 . 7 7 . 9 8 . 8 4 . 1 1 3 . 5 1 . 6 1 . 0 19 1 . 8 8 1 . 8 2 0 . 7 6 1 . 1 0 9 . 4 4 1 . 8 7 3 . 3 0 4 . 8 3 2 . 9 3 2 . 3 5 0 . 9 1 0 . 4 2 1 9 2 . 0 9 1 . 5 4 0 . 6 9 0 . 9 3 . 8 3 . 6 6 . 2 2 . 7 5 . 4 9 . 3 1 . 5 0 . 9 20 1 . 8 7 1 . 9 0 0 . 7 8 1 . 1 0 8 . 7 6 1 . 8 7 3 . 1 3 4 . 9 2 2 . 9 4 2 . 3 4 0 . 9 1 0 . 4 1 2 0 2 . 0 7 1 . 7 2 1 . 2 3 0 . 9 3 . 4 4 . 9 4 . 8 4. 2 6 . 7 7.8 1.4 1.1 21 1 . 8 6 1 . 9 2 0 . 7 3 1 . 0 9 9 . 4 2 1 . 9 9 2 . 9 5 4 . 7 9 2 . 9 3 2 . 3 6 0 . 9 0 0 . 4 0 2 1 2 . 0 6 2 . 5 1 0 . 9 2 0 . 9 3 . 4 3 . 8 4 . 3 4. 9 7 . 9 5.9 1.4 0.6 22 1 . 8 5 2 . 0 0 0 . 7 1 1 . 0 2 1 0 . 1 1 1 . 9 9 3 . 3 5 4 . 9 3 3 . 0 3 2 . 2 9 0 . 8 6 0 . 3 9 2 2 2 . 4 5 2 . 4 1 1 . 2 9 0 . 8 3 . 2 2 . 8 4 . 8 8. 2 9 . 2 5.2 1.6 1.3 23 1 . 8 7 1 . 8 4 0 . 7 1 0 . 9 5 9 . 8 0 1 . 9 8 3 . 3 0 5 . 4 5 3 . 0 0 2 . 2 6 0 . 8 2 0 . 4 0 2 3 2 . 2 6 2 . 7 7 1 . 2 6 0 . 7 3 . 0 2 . 9 4 . 9 15 . 4 10.5 5.3 1.3 0.6 24 1 . 8 9 1 . 7 3 0 . 7 0 0 . 9 6 9 . 4 4 1 . 9 8 3 . 5 6 5 . 4 0 3 . 0 1 2 . 3 5 0 . 7 9 0 . 4 8 2 4 2 . 6 0 1 . 4 2 0 . 6 4 0 . 8 2 . 9 2 . 8 1 1 . 1 14 . 1 7 . 1 4.9 1.2 1.2 25 1 . 8 8 1 . 8 0 0 . 6 9 0 . 9 1 9 . 2 8 2 . 0 0 4 . 0 6 5 . 4 1 2 . 9 9 2 . 3 7 0 . 8 2 0 . 4 8 2 5 2 . 5 1 1 . 4 0 0 . 4 6 0 . 7 2 . 9 2 . 7 8 . 6 11 . 0 3.8 5.1 1.3 1.5 26 1 . 8 8 1 . 8 4 0 . 6 8 0 . 9 0 9 . 2 3 2 . 0 0 3 . 7 5 . 2 1 2 . 8 6 2 . 3 3 0 . 8 5 0 . 4 8 2 6 2 . 3 1 1 . 7 2 0 . 4 6 0 . 7 3 . 1 3 . 0 8 . 9 5. 8 3 . 7 4.9 1.4 1.2 27 1 . 8 7 1 . 8 5 0 . 8 3 0 . 9 0 1 2 . 3 3 1 . 9 1 3 . 5 1 4 . 4 4 3 . 0 4 2 . 3 5 0 . 8 4 0 . 5 1 2 7 1 . 8 3 2 . 2 4 0 . 6 5 0 . 7 4 . 6 2 . 6 5 . 2 5. 6 3 . 5 5.1 1.3 1.4 28 1 . 8 9 1 . 8 5 1 . 1 2 0 . 9 0 1 1 . 9 5 1 . 8 5 3 . 9 2 4 . 5 9 3 . 0 8 2 . 3 5 0 . 8 6 0 . 4 9 2 8 2 . 0 0 1 . 8 4 0 . 8 4 0 . 7 6 . 7 3 . 8 5 . 7 4. 9 3 . 4 5.1 1.3 1.1 29 1 . 8 5 1 . 8 4 1 . 1 2 1 . 3 4 2 . 0 3 5 . 7 6 4 . 8 8 3 . 1 4 2 . 2 3 0 . 8 5 0 . 4 7 2 9 1 . 8 4 1 . 5 3 0 . 8 6 1 . 1 6 . 4 5 . 7 4. 6 3.3 4.7 1.3 1.0 30 1 . 8 4 1 . 8 3 1 . 1 7 1 0 . 1 1 2 . 2 3 5 . 9 3 4 . 7 8 2 . 4 7 1 . 1 5 0 . 8 4 0 . 4 1 3 0 1 . 9 2 1 . 3 0 0 . 8 6 1 5 . 8 1 4 . 8 5 . 5 4. 2 2 . 8 2.8 1.3 1.0 31 1 . 8 1 1 . 3 6 3 . 9 6 2 . 1 6 4 . 2 4 0 . 9 6 0 . 7 7 An n u a l 31 1 . 6 4 1 . 0 3 2 . 2 6 . 9 4 . 3 1 . 9 1 . 2 Annual TO T A L 5 8 . 1 5 5 . 0 3 4 . 6 4 8 4 5 9 . 8 2 1 4 9 5 1 6 6 9 1 7 0 . 1 4 6 . 8 1 5 . 4 1, 3 5 3 TO T A L 7 2 5 7 3 2 4 5 3 2 6 1 5 6 3 1 3 2 3 3 1 4 8 1 4 6 6 4 3 2 1,625 Ma x . d a y 2 . 1 2 . 0 1 . 9 1 0 1 5 3 . 0 3 8 . 5 6 7 3 . 6 2 . 4 1 4 . 6 0 . 7 15 3 Ma x . d a y 5 . 2 2 . 8 2 . 7 1 5 . 8 1 6 2 . 4 1 5 7 9 3 7 1 3 1 3 . 5 1 1 . 5 1 . 5 162 Da i l y v a l u e s a r e b a s e d o n c a l c u l a t i o n s o f s u s p e n d e d - s e d i m e n t l o a d a t 1 5 - m i n u t e i n t e r v a l s . St r e a m f l o w - b a s e d s u s p e n d e d - s e d i m e n t l o a d c o m p u t a t i o n u s e s a c o r r e l a t i o n b e t w e e n s t r e a m f l o w a n d s u s p e n d e d - s e d i m e n t c o n c e n t r a t i o n a n d i s b a s e d o n a p r o v i s i o n a l s t r e a m f l o w r e c o r d Tu r b i d i t y - b a s e d s u s p e n d e d - s e d i m e n t l o a d c o m p u t a t i o n u s e s a c o r r e l a t i o n b e t w e e n i n s t a n t a n e o u s t u r b i d i t y ( N T U ) a n d s u s p e n d e d - s e d i m e n t c o n c e n t r a t i o n ( m g / L ) a n d i s c o n v e r t e d t o t o n s / d a y Ba l a n c e H y d r o l o g i c s , I n c . P O B o x 1 0 7 7 , T r u c k e e , C A 9 6 1 6 1 , ( 5 3 0 ) 5 5 0 - 9 7 7 6 , B e r k e l e y , C A ( m a i n o f f i c e ) ( 5 1 0 ) 7 0 4 - 1 0 0 0 21 2 1 4 9 T U R B - T T 1 A n n u a l S e d _ W Y 1 4 . x l s x , A p p e n d i x F ©2014 Balance Hydrologics, Inc.