| Water Body Name: | Tule River, Lower |
| Water Body ID: | CAR5581000020020701150855 |
| Water Body Type: | River & Stream |
DECISION ID |
89861 |
Region 5 |
Tule River, Lower |
||
| Pollutant: | Alachlor |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a one line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the 14 samples exceed the Evaluation Guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of 14 samples exceeded Evaluation Guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 71042 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Alachlor | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 14 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | A total of 14 individual whole water samples were collected; 0 of 14 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline value of 1.64 ug/L. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Southern San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Tulare Lake Basin) | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin Second Edition. rev. Jan 2004 | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The Basin Plan states: "Where valid testing has developed 96-hour LC50 values for aquatic organisms..., the Board will consider one tenth of this value for the most sensitive species tested as the upper limit (daily maximum) for the protection of aquatic life... or [O]ther available information on the pesticide..." The evaluation guideline for Alachlor, 1.64 ug/L, is the EC50 for Selenastrum capricornutum (Green algae); USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database. | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database. | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Tule River, Lower was collected at 2 monitoring sites [Tule River at North Fork Road - 588TRA144, Tule River at Road - 558TRAR92] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 7/5/2007-8/21/2009. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | Data for this line of evidence was collected as part of the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
89916 |
Region 5 |
Tule River, Lower |
||
| Pollutant: | Aldicarb |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the 16 samples exceed the Evaluation Guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of 16 samples exceeded the Evaluation Guideline and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 71043 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Aldicarb | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 16 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Tule River, Lower to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 samples exceed the criterion for Aldicarb. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Southern San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Tulare Lake Basin) | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin Second Edition. rev. Jan 2004 | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The Basin Plan states: "Where valid testing has developed 96-hour LC50 values for aquatic organisms..., the Board will consider one tenth of this value for the most sensitive species tested as the upper limit (daily maximum) for the protection of aquatic life... or [O]ther available information on the pesticide..." The evaluation guideline for aldicarb, 6.33 ug/L, is one-tenth of the median lethal concentration (LC50 = 63.3 ug/L) for Lepomis macrochirus (Bluegill sunfish); USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database. | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database. | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Tule River, Lower was collected at 2 monitoring sites, 9 samples each [Tule River at North Fork Road - 588TRA144 and Tule River at Road - 558TRAR92] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected intermittently between 8/16/2006 and 8/21/2009. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | Data for this line of evidence was collected as part of the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
90043 |
Region 5 |
Tule River, Lower |
||
| Pollutant: | Aldrin |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a one line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the 14 samples exceed the Criteria/Objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of 14 samples exceeded Criteria/Objective and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 71044 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Aldrin | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 14 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Tule River, Lower to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 14 samples exceed the criterion for Aldrin. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Southern San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The criterion maximum concentration to protect aquatic life in freshwater for aldrin is 1.5 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Tule River, Lower was collected at 2 monitoring sites [Tule River at North Fork Road - 588TRA144, Tule River at Road - 558TRAR92] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 7/5/2007-8/21/2009. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | Data for this line of evidence was collected as part of the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
94725 |
Region 5 |
Tule River, Lower |
||
| Pollutant: | Ammonia as N, Total |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | All of the data was reported as either "Ammonia as N" (total ammonia) or as "NH4N" (ionized ammonia), for which there are no criteria and, therefore, which cannot be assessed. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | All of the data was reported as either "Ammonia as N" (total ammonia) or as "NH4N" (ionized ammonia), for which there are no criteria and, therefore, which cannot be assessed. Therefore, the decision is Do Not List. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 79012 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Ammonia as N, Total | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Aquatic Life Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Twenty-six water samples collected by the South San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition from Tule River, Lower were analyzed for ammonia as N. All of the data was reported as either "Ammonia as N" (total ammonia) or as "NH4N" (ionized ammonia), for which there are no criteria and, therefore, which cannot be assessed.
None of the data could be assessed using the water quality objective because none of the data was reported as un-ionized ammonia. |
||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Southern San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | |||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | ¿Waters shall not contain un-ionized ammonia in amounts which adversely affect beneficial uses. In no case shall the discharge of wastes cause concentrations of un-ionized ammonia (NH3) to exceed 0.025 mg/l (as N) in receiving waters.¿ (Tulare Lake Basin Plan) | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in South San Joaquin Irrigation District, 2004-2008. | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Office of Science and Technology | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence was collected from the Tule River, Lower at two monitoring sites [Tule River at North Fork Road 144 - 588TRA144 and Tule River at Road 92 - 558TRAR92]. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The 26 water samples were collected intermittently from Tule River, Lower between 8/16/2006 and 8/21/2009. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Data for this line of evidence was collected as part of the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
87398 |
Region 5 |
Tule River, Lower |
||
| Pollutant: | Arsenic |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status.
Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of 14 samples exceed the evaluation guideline for WARM. Zero of one sediment sample exceed the evaluation guideline for WARM. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of 14 samples exceed the evaluation guideline for WARM. Zero of one sediment sample exceed the evaluation guideline for WARM. This sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 71061 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Arsenic | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | SWAMP data indicates that 0 of the sample results exceed the evaluation guideline value for Arsenic. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Tulare Lake Basin) | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | In freshwater sediments, the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for arsenic is 33 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence was collected at one monitoring site [ Tule River - Rd. 64 bridge - 558TUR090] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on 4/29/2008. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 71062 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Arsenic | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 14 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Tule River, Lower to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 14 samples exceed the criterion for Arsenic. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Southern San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The dissolved arsenic criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater for dissolved arsenic is 0.150 mg/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Tule River, Lower was collected at 2 monitoring sites [Tule River at North Fork Road - 588TRA144, Tule River at Road - 558TRAR92] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 7/5/2007-8/21/2009. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | Data for this line of evidence was collected as part of the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
87399 |
Region 5 |
Tule River, Lower |
||
| Pollutant: | Atrazine |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the 18 samples exceed the Evaluation Guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of 18 samples exceeded the Evaluation Guideline and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 71063 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Atrazine | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 18 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Tule River, Lower to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 14 samples exceed the criterion for Atrazine. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Southern San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin) | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The Basin Plan states: "Where valid testing has developed 96-hour LC50 values for aquatic organisms..., the Board will consider one tenth of this value for the most sensitive species tested as the upper limit (daily maximum) for the protection of aquatic life... or [O]ther available information on the pesticide..." The evaluation guideline for Atrazine, 43 ug/L, is a an EC50 for Lemna gibba (duckweed); USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database. | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database. | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Tule River, Lower was collected at 2 monitoring sites, 9 samples each [Tule River at North Fork Road - 588TRA144 and Tule River at Road - 558TRAR92] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected intermittently between 8/16/2006 and 8/21/2009. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | Data for this line of evidence was collected as part of the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
90044 |
Region 5 |
Tule River, Lower |
||
| Pollutant: | Azinphos-methyl (Guthion) |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a one line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the water samples exceed the Evaluation Guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of the water samples exceed Evaluation Guideline, and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 71064 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Azinphos-methyl (Guthion) | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Tule River, Lower to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Azinphos methyl. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Southern San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin) | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The National Recommended Water Quality criterion for Azinphos Methyl (Guthion) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life is a maximum of 0.01 ug/l. | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Office of Science and Technology | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Tule River, Lower was collected at 2 monitoring sites [Tule River at North Fork Road - 588TRA144, Tule River at Road - 558TRAR92] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 7/5/2007-8/21/2009. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | Data for this line of evidence was collected as part of the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
72913 |
Region 5 |
Tule River, Lower |
||
| Pollutant: | Bifenthrin |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the zero samples exceed the evaluation guideline for WARM. Zero of one sediment sample exceed the evaluation guideline for WARM. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of the zero samples exceed the evaluation guideline for WARM. Zero of one sediment sample exceed the evaluation guideline for WARM. This sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met." |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 71083 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Bifenthrin | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | SWAMP data indicates that 0 of the sample results exceed the evaluation guideline value for Bifenthrin. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Waters shall not contain pesticides in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in pesticide concentrations in bottom sediments or aquatic life that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Tulare Lake Basin) | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline value for bifenthrin, 0.043 ug/g OC, is one-tenth of the median lethal concentration for H. azteca (LC50; 0.43 ug/g OC). The LC50 (0.43 ug/g OC) is the geometric mean of OC-normalized LC50 values for bifenthrin from Amweg et al. (2005) and Amweg and Weston (2007). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5 | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Whole-sediment toxicity identification evaluation tools for pyrethroid insecticides: I. piperonyl butoxide addition. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 26:2389-2396. | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence was collected at one monitoring site [ Tule River - Rd. 64 bridge - 558TUR090] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on 4/29/2008. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 78648 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Bifenthrin | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed ILRP data for Tule River, Lower to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for bifenthrin. The four available samples were not used in the assessment because the OC-normalized laboratory data reporting limit was above the objective, the available OC-normalized samples were below the laboratory data reporting limit, and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Southern San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Waters shall not contain pesticides in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in pesticide concentrations in bottom sediments or aquatic life that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin Second Edition. rev. Jan 2004 | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline value for bifenthrin in sediment (0.043 ug/g OC), is one-tenth of the geometric mean (0.43 ug/g OC) of the organic carbon-normalized (OC) LC50 values for Hyalella azteca, an amphipod crustacean. The LC50 values were derived by Amweg et al. 2005 and Amweg and Weston 2007. | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5 | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Whole-sediment toxicity identification evaluation tools for pyrethroid insecticides: I. piperonyl butoxide addition. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 26:2389-2396. | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence was collected at two monitoring sites [Tule River at North Fork Road 144 - 588TRA144 and Tule River at Road 92 - 558TRAR92]. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected from 6/18/2008 to 8/21/2009. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | Data for this line of evidence was collected as part of the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 71065 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Bifenthrin | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Tule River, Lower to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Bifenthrin. Ten samples were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Southern San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin) | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The Basin Plan states: "Where valid testing has developed 96-hour LC50 values for aquatic organisms..., the Board will consider one tenth of this value for the most sensitive species tested as the upper limit (daily maximum) for the protection of aquatic life... or [O]ther available information on the pesticide..." Aquatic life should not be affected unacceptably if the 4-day average concentration of Bifenthrin, 0.0006 ug/L, is not exceeded more than once every three years on the average (UC Davis Aquatic Life Criterion). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database. | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Tule River, Lower was collected at 2 monitoring sites [Tule River at North Fork Road - 588TRA144, Tule River at Road - 558TRAR92] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 7/5/2007-8/21/2009. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | Data for this line of evidence was collected as part of the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
90045 |
Region 5 |
Tule River, Lower |
||
| Pollutant: | Boron |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the 18 samples exceed the Evaluation Guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of 18 samples exceeded the Evaluation Guideline and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 79359 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Boron | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Agricultural Supply | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 18 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | State Water Board staff assessed ILRP data for Tule River, Lower to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 18 samples exceed the criterion for Boron. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Southern San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Waters shall not contain chemical constituents in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | Water Quality for Agriculture, published by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations in 1985, contains criteria protective of various agricultural uses of water, including irrigation of various types of crops and stock watering. At or below the limits presented in the Water Quality Goals tables, agricultural uses of water should not be limited. These criteria were used to translate narrative water quality objectives for chemical constituents that prohibit chemicals in concentrations that would impair agricultural uses of water. The criteria for boron is 700 ug/L (0.7 mg/L). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Water Quality for Agriculture, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations - Irrigation and Drainage Paper No. 29, Rev 1, Rome (1985) | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Tule River, Lower was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Tule River at North Fork Road - 144588TRA144, Tule River at Road - 92558TRAR92] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 8/16/2006-8/21/2009. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | Data for this line of evidence was collected as part of the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
73531 |
Region 5 |
Tule River, Lower |
||
| Pollutant: | Bromacil |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the 18 samples exceed the Evaluation Guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of 18 samples exceeded the Evaluation Guideline and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 71084 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Bromacil | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 18 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Tule River, Lower to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 18 samples exceed the criterion for Bromacil. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Southern San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Tulare Lake Basin) | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin Second Edition. rev. Jan 2004 | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The EC50 for bromacil for Lemna gibba (duckweed) is 45 ug/L (USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database. | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Tule River, Lower was collected at 2 monitoring sites [Tule River at North Fork Road - 588TRA144, Tule River at Road - 558TRAR92] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 8/16/2006-8/21/2009. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | Data for this line of evidence was collected as part of the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
86596 |
Region 5 |
Tule River, Lower |
||
| Pollutant: | Cadmium |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status.
Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of 12 samples exceed the evaluation guideline for WARM. Zero of one sediment sample exceed the evaluation guideline for WARM. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of 12 samples exceed the evaluation guideline for WARM. Zero of one sediment sample exceed the evaluation guideline for WARM. This sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 71085 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Cadmium | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | SWAMP data indicates that 0 of the sample results exceed the evaluation guideline value for Cadmium. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. Discharges shall not result in pesticide concentrations in bottom sediments or aquatic life that adversely affect beneficial uses. All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Sacramento River and San Joaquin River Basins). | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | In freshwater sediments, the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for cadmium is 4.98 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence was collected at one monitoring site [ Tule River - Rd. 64 bridge - 558TUR090] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on 4/29/2008. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 71086 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Cadmium | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 12 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed AgWaiver data for Tule River, Lower to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 samples exceed the criterion for Cadmium. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Southern San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The California Toxics Rule (CTR) lists criterion continuous concentrations (4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater. The cadmium criterion in freshwater is hardness-dependent for each sample and varies based on the ambient hardness during sampling. Section (b)(1) in CTR contains the hardness dependent formula for the metals criterion. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Tule River, Lower was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Tule River at North Fork Road - 588TRA144, Tule River at Road - 558TRAR92] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 3/5/2008-8/21/2009. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | Data for this line of evidence was collected as part of the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
86597 |
Region 5 |
Tule River, Lower |
||
| Pollutant: | Carbaryl |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the 16 samples exceed the Evaluation Guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of 16 samples exceeded the Evaluation Guideline and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 71087 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Carbaryl | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 16 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Tule River, Lower to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 16 samples exceed the criterion for Carbaryl. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Southern San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Tulare Lake Basin) | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin Second Edition. rev. Jan 2004 | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The USEPA recommended water quality criterion for freshwater aquatic life for carbaryl is 2.1 µg/L. | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Office of Science and Technology | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Tule River, Lower was collected at 2 monitoring sites [Tule River at North Fork Road - 588TRA144, Tule River at Road - 558TRAR92] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 8/16/2006-8/21/2009. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | Data for this line of evidence was collected as part of the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
90046 |
Region 5 |
Tule River, Lower |
||
| Pollutant: | Carbofuran |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the 16 samples exceed the Evaluation Guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of 16 samples exceeded the Evaluation Guideline and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 71088 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Carbofuran | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 16 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Tule River, Lower to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 16 samples exceed the criterion for Carbofuran. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Southern San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Tulare Lake Basin) | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin Second Edition. rev. Jan 2004 | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The freshwater criterion maximum concentration for carbofuran is 0.5 µg/L (DFG 92-3, 1992). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Hazard Assessment of the Insecticide Carbofuran to Aquatic Organisms in the Sacramento River System | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Tule River, Lower was collected at 2 monitoring sites [Tule River at North Fork Road - 588TRA144, Tule River at Road - 558TRAR92] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 8/16/2006-8/21/2009. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | Data for this line of evidence was collected as part of the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
89715 |
Region 5 |
Tule River, Lower |
||
| Pollutant: | Chlordane |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a one line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status.
Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The single sediment sample does not exceed the WARM evaluation guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. The single sediment sample does not exceed the WARM evaluation guideline, and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 71105 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Chlordane | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Zero of 1 sample collected exceeded the criteria for chlordane concentration (Sum of trans-Chlordane, cis-Chlordane, cis-Nonachlor, trans-Nonachlor, and Oxychlordane). | ||||
| Data Reference: | Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. Waters shall not contain substances in concentrations that result in the deposition of material that causes nuisance or adversely affects beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin). | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin Second Edition. rev. Jan 2004 | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The Probable Effect Concentration for Chlordane in freshwater sediments is 17.6 ug/kg(MacDonald et al. 2000). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data were collected at the following station 558TUR090 (Tule River - Rd. 64 bridge). | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected on 4/29/2008. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 78646 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Chlordane | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Aquatic Life Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Tule River, Lower to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: eight samples were analyzed for Chlordane. The eight samples were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit was above the objective, the available sample was below the laboratory data reporting limit, and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for chlordane. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants for California Rice Commission, 2004-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Chlordane criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.0043 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Tule River, Lower was collected at two monitoring sites [Tule River at North Fork Road 144 - 588TRA144; Tule River at Road 92 - 558TRAR92] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected between 8/16/2006 and 3/05/2008 | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | Data was collected as part of the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan for California Rice Commission. | ||||
DECISION ID |
86598 |
Region 5 |
Tule River, Lower |
||
| Pollutant: | Chlorpyrifos |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status.
Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. One of six water samples exceed the evaluation guideline for WARM. Zero of zero sediment samples exceed the evaluation guideline for WARM. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. One of six water samples exceed the evaluation guideline for WARM and zero of zero sediment samples exceed the evaluation guideline for WARM. This sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 78660 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Chlorpyrifos | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed ILRP data for Tule River, Lower to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for chlorpyrifos. The three available samples were not used in the assessment because the OC-normalized laboratory data reporting limit was above the objective, the available OC-normalized samples were below the laboratory data reporting limit, and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Southern San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Waters shall not contain pesticides in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in pesticide concentrations in bottom sediments or aquatic life that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin Second Edition. rev. Jan 2004 | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline value for chlorpyrifos in sediment (0.177 ug/g OC), is one-tenth of the geometric mean (1.77 ug/g OC) of the organic carbon-normalized (OC) LC50 values for Hyalella azteca, an amphipod crustacean. The LC50 values were derived by Amweg and Weston (2007). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Whole-sediment toxicity identification evaluation tools for pyrethroid insecticides: I. piperonyl butoxide addition. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 26:2389-2396. | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence was collected at two monitoring sites [Tule River at North Fork Road 144 - 588TRA144 and Tule River at Road 92 - 558TRAR92]. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected from 6/18/2008 to 8/21/2009. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | Data for this line of evidence was collected as part of the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 71107 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Chlorpyrifos | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Tule River, Lower to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 1 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Chlorpyrifos. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Southern San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Tulare Lake Basin) | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin Second Edition. rev. Jan 2004 | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The freshwater criterion continuous concentration to protect aquatic organisms is 0.015 ug/L (Siepmann and Finlayson 2000). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Water quality criteria for diazinon and chlorpyrifos. Administrative Report 00-3. Rancho Cordova, CA: Pesticide Investigations Unit, Office of Spills and Response. CA Department of Fish and Game (with minor corrections to significant figures as described in Beaulaurier et al., 2005). | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Tule River, Lower was collected at 2 monitoring sites [Tule River at North Fork Road - 588TRA144, Tule River at Road - 558TRAR92] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 7/5/2007-8/21/2009. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | Data for this line of evidence was collected as part of the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
86599 |
Region 5 |
Tule River, Lower |
||
| Pollutant: | Chromium |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1a one line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The single sediment sample does not exceed the COLD evaluation guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. The single sediment sample does not exceed the COLD evaluation guideline, and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 71108 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Chromium | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | SWAMP data indicates that 0 of the sample results exceed the evaluation guideline value for Chromium. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. Discharges shall not result in pesticide concentrations in bottom sediments or aquatic life that adversely affect beneficial uses. All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Sacramento River and San Joaquin River Basins). | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | In freshwater sediments, the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for chromium is 111 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence was collected at one monitoring site [ Tule River - Rd. 64 bridge - 558TUR090] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on 4/29/2008. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
86654 |
Region 5 |
Tule River, Lower |
||
| Pollutant: | Copper |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status.
Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of 12 water samples exceed the water quality objective for WARM. The single sediment sample does not exceed the evaluation guideline for WARM. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of 12 water samples exceed the water quality objective for WARM and the single sediment sample does not exceed the evaluation guideline for WARM, and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met" |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 71109 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Copper | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | SWAMP data indicates that 0 of the sample results exceed the evaluation guideline value for Copper. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. Discharges shall not result in pesticide concentrations in bottom sediments or aquatic life that adversely affect beneficial uses. All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Sacramento River and San Joaquin River Basins). | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | In freshwater sediments, the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for copper is 149 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence was collected at one monitoring site [ Tule River - Rd. 64 bridge - 558TUR090] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on 4/29/2008. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 70800 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Copper | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 12 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed AgWaiver data for Tule River, Lower to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 samples exceed the criterion for Copper. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Southern San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The California Toxics Rule (CTR) lists criterion continuous concentrations (4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater. The chromium criterion in freshwater is hardness-dependent for each sample and varies based on the ambient hardness during sampling. Section (b)(1) in CTR contains the hardness-dependent formula for metals criteria. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Tule River, Lower was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Tule River at North Fork Road - 588TRA144, Tule River at Road - 558TRAR92] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 3/5/2008-8/21/2009. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | Data for this line of evidence was collected as part of the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
89717 |
Region 5 |
Tule River, Lower |
||
| Pollutant: | Cyanazine |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the 18 samples exceed the Evaluation Guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of 18 samples exceeded the Evaluation Guideline and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 70801 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Cyanazine | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 18 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Tule River, Lower to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 18 samples exceed the criterion for Cyanazine. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Southern San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Tulare Lake Basin) | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin Second Edition. rev. Jan 2004 | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The EC50 for Navicula pelliculosa (freshwater diatom) for cyanazine is 4.8 ug/L (USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database. | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Tule River, Lower was collected at 2 monitoring sites [Tule River at North Fork Road - 588TRA144, Tule River at Road - 558TRAR92] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 8/16/2006-8/21/2009. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | Data for this line of evidence was collected as part of the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
86655 |
Region 5 |
Tule River, Lower |
||
| Pollutant: | Cyfluthrin |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status.
Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of zero water samples exceed the evaluation guideline for WARM. Zero of zero sediment samples exceed the evaluation guideline for WARM. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of zero water samples exceed the evaluation guideline for WARM. Zero of zero sediment samples exceed the evaluation guideline for WARM. This sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met." |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 78776 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Cyfluthrin | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed ILRP data for Tule River, Lower to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for cyfluthrin. The four available samples were not used in the assessment because the OC-normalized laboratory data reporting limit was above the objective, the available OC-normalized samples were below the laboratory data reporting limit, and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Southern San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Waters shall not contain pesticides in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in pesticide concentrations in bottom sediments or aquatic life that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin Second Edition. rev. Jan 2004 | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline value for cyfluthrin in sediment (0.11 ug/g OC), is one-tenth of the geometric mean (1.1 ug/g OC) of the organic carbon-normalized (OC) LC50 values for Hyalella azteca, an amphipod crustacean. The LC50 values were derived by Amweg et al. (2005). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence was collected at two monitoring sites [Tule River at North Fork Road 144 - 588TRA144 and Tule River at Road 92 - 558TRAR92]. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected from 6/18/2008 to 8/21/2009. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | Data for this line of evidence was collected as part of the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 70802 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Cyfluthrin | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Tule River, Lower to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Cyfluthrin, total. Ten samples were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Southern San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin) | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The Basin Plan states: "Where valid testing has developed 96-hour LC50 values for aquatic organisms..., the Board will consider one tenth of this value for the most sensitive species tested as the upper limit (daily maximum) for the protection of aquatic life... or [O]ther available information on the pesticide..." Aquatic life should not be affected unacceptably if the 4-day average concentration of Cyfluthrin, 0.00005 ug/L, is not exceeded more than once every three years on the average (UC Davis Aquatic Life Criterion). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Aquatic life water quality criteria derived via the UC Davis method: ll. Pyrethroid insecticides. Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 216:51-103. | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Tule River, Lower was collected at 2 monitoring sites [Tule River at North Fork Road - 588TRA144, Tule River at Road - 558TRAR92] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 7/5/2007-8/21/2009. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | Data for this line of evidence was collected as part of the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
86656 |
Region 5 |
Tule River, Lower |
||
| Pollutant: | Cyhalothrin, Lambda |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status.
Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of zero water samples exceed the evaluation guideline for WARM. Zero of zero sediment samples exceed the evaluation guideline for WARM. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of zero samples exceed the evaluation guideline for WARM and zero of zero sediment samples exceed the evaluation guideline for WARM. This sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 70823 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Cyhalothrin, Lambda | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Tule River, Lower to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Cyhalothrin, lambda. Ten samples were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Southern San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin) | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The Basin Plan states: "Where valid testing has developed 96-hour LC50 values for aquatic organisms..., the Board will consider one tenth of this value for the most sensitive species tested as the upper limit (daily maximum) for the protection of aquatic life... or [O]ther available information on the pesticide..." Aquatic life should not be affected unacceptably if the 4-day average concentration of Cyhalothrin, 0.0005 ug/L, is not exceeded more than once every three years on the average (UC Davis Aquatic Life Criterion). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Aquatic life water quality criteria derived via the UC Davis method: ll. Pyrethroid insecticides. Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 216:51-103. | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Tule River, Lower was collected at 2 monitoring sites [Tule River at North Fork Road - 588TRA144, Tule River at Road - 558TRAR92] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 7/5/2007-8/21/2009. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | Data for this line of evidence was collected as part of the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 78768 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Cyhalothrin, Lambda | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed ILRP data for Tule River, Lower to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for cyhalothrin, lambda. The four available samples were not used in the assessment because the OC-normalized laboratory data reporting limit was above the objective, the available OC-normalized samples were below the laboratory data reporting limit, and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Southern San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Waters shall not contain pesticides in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in pesticide concentrations in bottom sediments or aquatic life that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin Second Edition. rev. Jan 2004 | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline value for cyhalothrin, lambda in sediment (0.044 ug/g OC), is one-tenth of the geometric mean (0.44 ug/g OC) of the organic carbon-normalized (OC) LC50 values for Hyalella azteca, an amphipod crustacean. The LC50 values were derived by Amweg et al. (2005). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence was collected at two monitoring sites [Tule River at North Fork Road 144 - 588TRA144 and Tule River at Road 92 - 558TRAR92]. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected from 6/18/2008 to 8/21/2009. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | Data for this line of evidence was collected as part of the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
100258 |
Region 5 |
Tule River, Lower |
||
| Pollutant: | Cypermethrin |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status.
Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of zero samples exceed of the evaluation guideline for chronic and acute toxicity for WARM, and 0 of 0 samples exceed the evaluation guideline (sediment matrix) for WARM. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of zero samples exceed of the evaluation guideline for chronic and acute toxicity for WARM, and 0 of 0 samples exceed the evaluation guideline (sediment matrix) for WARM. This sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 78786 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Cypermethrin | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed ILRP data for Tule River, Lower to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for cypermethrin. The four available samples were not used in the assessment because the OC-normalized laboratory data reporting limit was above the objective, the available OC-normalized samples were below the laboratory data reporting limit, and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Southern San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Waters shall not contain pesticides in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in pesticide concentrations in bottom sediments or aquatic life that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin Second Edition. rev. Jan 2004 | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline value for cypermethrin in sediment (0.03 ug/g OC), is one-tenth of the geometric mean (0.3 ug/g OC) of the organic carbon-normalized (OC) LC50 values for Hyalella azteca, an amphipod crustacean. The LC50 values were derived by Maund et al. (2002). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Partitioning, bioavailability, and toxicity of the pyrethroid insecticide cypermethrin in sediments. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 21:9-15 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence was collected at two monitoring sites [Tule River at North Fork Road 144 - 588TRA144 and Tule River at Road 92 - 558TRAR92]. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected from 6/18/2008 to 8/21/2009. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | Data for this line of evidence was collected as part of the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 70825 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Cypermethrin | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Tule River, Lower to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Cypermethrin, total. Ten samples were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Southern San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin) | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The Basin Plan states: "Where valid testing has developed 96-hour LC50 values for aquatic organisms..., the Board will consider one tenth of this value for the most sensitive species tested as the upper limit (daily maximum) for the protection of aquatic life... or [O]ther available information on the pesticide..." Aquatic life should not be affected unacceptably if the 4-day average concentration of Cypermethrin, 0.0002 ug/L, or the 1-hour average concentration, 0.001 ug/L, is not exceeded more than once every three years on the average (UC Davis Aquatic Life Criterion). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Aquatic life water quality criteria derived via the UC Davis method: ll. Pyrethroid insecticides. Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 216:51-103. | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Tule River, Lower was collected at 2 monitoring sites [Tule River at North Fork Road - 588TRA144, Tule River at Road - 558TRAR92] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 7/5/2007-8/21/2009. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | Data for this line of evidence was collected as part of the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
89776 |
Region 5 |
Tule River, Lower |
||
| Pollutant: | DDD (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane) |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a one line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the one samples exceed the Evaluation Guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of one samples exceeded Evaluation Guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 70847 | ||||
| Pollutant: | DDD (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane) | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | The sample result did not exceed the evaluation guideline value (28.0 ug/Kg dry weight). | ||||
| Data Reference: | Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Waters shall not contain pesticides in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in pesticide concentrations in bottom sediments or aquatic life that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Tulare Lake Basin) | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | In freshwater sediments, the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for the sum of DDD (o,p' + p,p') is 28.0 ug/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence was collected at one monitoring site [ Tule River - Rd. 64 bridge - 558TUR090] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on 4/29/2008. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
86709 |
Region 5 |
Tule River, Lower |
||
| Pollutant: | DDE (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene) |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1a one line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the one samples exceed the Evaluation Guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of one samples exceeded Evaluation Guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 70848 | ||||
| Pollutant: | DDE (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene) | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | The sample result did not exceed the evaluation guideline value (31.3 ug/Kg dry weight). | ||||
| Data Reference: | Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Waters shall not contain pesticides in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in pesticide concentrations in bottom sediments or aquatic life that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Tulare Lake Basin) | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | In freshwater sediments, the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for the sum of DDE is 31.3 ug/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence was collected at one monitoring site [ Tule River - Rd. 64 bridge - 558TUR090] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on 4/29/2008. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
89777 |
Region 5 |
Tule River, Lower |
||
| Pollutant: | DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a one line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the one samples exceed the Evaluation Guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of one samples exceeded Evaluation Guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 70849 | ||||
| Pollutant: | DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | The sample result did not exceed the evaluation guideline value (62.9 ug/Kg dry weight). | ||||
| Data Reference: | Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Waters shall not contain pesticides in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in pesticide concentrations in bottom sediments or aquatic life that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Tulare Lake Basin) | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | In freshwater sediments, the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for the sum of DDT is 62.9 ug/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence was collected at one monitoring site [ Tule River - Rd. 64 bridge - 558TUR090] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on 4/29/2008. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
89718 |
Region 5 |
Tule River, Lower |
||
| Pollutant: | Dacthal |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a one line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the 10 samples exceed the Evaluation Guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of 10 samples exceeded Evaluation Guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 79252 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Dacthal | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 10 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | State Water Board staff assessed ILRP data for Tule River, Lower to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 10 samples exceed the criterion for Dacthal. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Southern San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin: No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | According to the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the freshwater aquatic life 1/10th LC50 for Dacthal is 660 ug/L. | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database. | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Tule River, Lower was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Tule River at North Fork Road - 144588TRA144, Tule River at Road - 92558TRAR92] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 6/18/2008-8/21/2009. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | Data for this line of evidence was collected as part of the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
86710 |
Region 5 |
Tule River, Lower |
||
| Pollutant: | Deltamethrin |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status.
Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of six water samples exceed the evaluation guideline for WARM. Zero of zero sediment samples exceed the evaluation guideline for WARM. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of the six water samples exceed the evaluation guideline for WARM. Zero of zero sediment samples exceed the evaluation guideline for WARM. This sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 70851 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Deltamethrin | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | The sample was below both the reporting limit (2 ng/g dry weight) and the organic carbon-normalized evaluation guideline value (0.79 ug/g OC) and could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the listing policy. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Waters shall not contain pesticides in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in pesticide concentrations in bottom sediments or aquatic life that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Tulare Lake Basin) | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline value for deltamethrin, 0.79 ug/g OC, is the median lethal concentration for H. azteca (LC50). The LC50 (0.79 ug/g OC) is the geometric mean of OC-normalized LC50 values for deltamethrin from Amweg et al. (2005). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence was collected at one monitoring site [ Tule River - Rd. 64 bridge - 558TUR090] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on 4/29/2008. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 70850 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Deltamethrin | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Tule River, Lower to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Deltamethrin. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Southern San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin) | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The Basin Plan states: "Where valid testing has developed 96-hour LC50 values for aquatic organisms..., the Board will consider one tenth of this value for the most sensitive species tested as the upper limit (daily maximum) for the protection of aquatic life... or [O]ther available information on the pesticide..." The evaluation guideline for Deltamethrin, 0.02 ug/L, is the maximum acceptable toxicicant concentration (MATC) for Pimephales promelas (Fathead minnow); USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database. | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database. | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Tule River, Lower was collected at 2 monitoring sites [Tule River at North Fork Road - 588TRA144, Tule River at Road - 558TRAR92] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 5/11/2009-8/21/2009. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | Data for this line of evidence was collected as part of the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
86711 |
Region 5 |
Tule River, Lower |
||
| Pollutant: | Diazinon |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status.
Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the 12 water samples exceed the WARM evaluation guideline. Zero of zero sediment samples exceed the evaluation guideline for WARM. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of 12 water samples exceed the WARM evaluation guideline and zero of zero sediment samples exceed the evaluation guideline for WARM. This sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 70870 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Diazinon | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | The sample was below both the reporting limit (5 ng/g dry weight) and the organic carbon-normalized evaluation guideline value (11 ug/g OC) and could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the listing policy. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Waters shall not contain pesticides in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in pesticide concentrations in bottom sediments or aquatic life that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Tulare Lake Basin) | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline value for diazinon, 1.1 ug/g OC, is one-tenth of the median lethal concentration for H. azteca (LC50; 11 ug/g OC). The LC50 (11 ug/g OC) is the geometric mean of OC-normalized LC50 values for diazinon (Ding et al. 2011). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Toxicity of Sediment-Associated Pesticides to Chironomus dilutus and Hyalella azteca. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 61:83¿92. | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence was collected at one monitoring site [ Tule River - Rd. 64 bridge - 558TUR090] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on 4/29/2008. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 70869 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Diazinon | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 12 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Tule River, Lower to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 samples exceed the criterion for Diazinon. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Southern San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Tulare Lake Basin) | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin Second Edition. rev. Jan 2004 | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The freshwater chronic criterion value for diazinon is 0.1 ug/L, expressed as a continuous concentration (Finlayson, 2004). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Water quality for diazinon. Memorandum to J. Karkoski, Central Valley RWQCB. Rancho Cordova, CA: Pesticide Investigation Unit, CA Department of Fish and Game | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Tule River, Lower was collected at 2 monitoring sites [Tule River at North Fork Road - 588TRA144, Tule River at Road - 558TRAR92] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 7/5/2007-8/21/2009. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | Data for this line of evidence was collected as part of the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
86712 |
Region 5 |
Tule River, Lower |
||
| Pollutant: | Dichlorvos |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | "This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1a one line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the 10 samples exceed the Evaluation Guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of 10 samples exceeded Evaluation Guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met." |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 79261 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Dichlorvos | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 10 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | State Water Board staff assessed ILRP data for Tule River, Lower to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 10 samples exceed the criterion for Dichlorvos. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Southern San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin: No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | According to the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the freshwater aquatic life MATC for dichlorvos is 7.2 ug/L. | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database. | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Tule River, Lower was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Tule River at North Fork Road - 144588TRA144, Tule River at Road - 92558TRAR92] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 3/5/2008-8/21/2009. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | Data for this line of evidence was collected as part of the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
89778 |
Region 5 |
Tule River, Lower |
||
| Pollutant: | Dicofol |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the 18 samples exceed the Evaluation Guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of 18 samples exceeded the Evaluation Guideline and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 70871 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Dicofol | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 18 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Tule River, Lower to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 18 samples exceed the criterion for Dicofol. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Southern San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Tulare Lake Basin) | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin Second Edition. rev. Jan 2004 | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The Basin Plan states: "Where valid testing has developed 96-hour LC50 values for aquatic organisms..., the Board will consider one tenth of this value for the most sensitive species tested as the upper limit (daily maximum) for the protection of aquatic life... or [O]ther available information on the pesticide..." The evaluation guideline for Dicofol, 5.9 ug/L, is the maximum acceptable toxicicant concentration (MATC) for Oncorhyncus mykiss (Rainbow trout); USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database. | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database. | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Tule River, Lower was collected at 2 monitoring sites [Tule River at North Fork Road - 588TRA144, Tule River at Road - 558TRAR92] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 8/16/2006-8/21/2009. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | Data for this line of evidence was collected as part of the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
89779 |
Region 5 |
Tule River, Lower |
||
| Pollutant: | Dieldrin |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a one line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status.
Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the 14 samples exceed the WARM water quality objective. Zero of one sediment sample exceed the evaluation guideline for WARM. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of the 14 samples exceed the WARM water quality objective. Zero of one sediment sample exceed the evaluation guideline for WARM. This sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 70872 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Dieldrin | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | The sample result did not exceed the evaluation guideline value (61.8 ug/Kg dry weight). | ||||
| Data Reference: | Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Waters shall not contain pesticides in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in pesticide concentrations in bottom sediments or aquatic life that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Tulare Lake Basin) | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | In freshwater sediments, the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for dieldrin is 61.8 ug/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence was collected at one monitoring site [ Tule River - Rd. 64 bridge - 558TUR090] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on 4/29/2008. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 70873 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Dieldrin | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 14 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Tule River, Lower to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 14 samples exceed the criterion for Dieldrin. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Southern San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Dieldrin criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.056 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Tule River, Lower was collected at 2 monitoring sites [Tule River at North Fork Road - 588TRA144, Tule River at Road - 558TRAR92] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 7/5/2007-8/21/2009. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | Data for this line of evidence was collected as part of the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
100259 |
Region 5 |
Tule River, Lower |
||
| Pollutant: | Dimethoate |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the 18 samples exceed the Evaluation Guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of 18 samples exceeded the Evaluation Guideline and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 70890 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Dimethoate | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 18 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Tule River, Lower to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 18 samples exceed the criterion for Dimethoate. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Southern San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Tulare Lake Basin) | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin Second Edition. rev. Jan 2004 | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The Basin Plan states: "Where valid testing has developed 96-hour LC50 values for aquatic organisms..., the Board will consider one tenth of this value for the most sensitive species tested as the upper limit (daily maximum) for the protection of aquatic life... or [O]ther available information on the pesticide..." The evaluation guideline for dimethoate, 4.3 ug/L, is one-tenth of the median lethal concentration (LC50 = 43 ug/L) for Pteronarcys californica (Stonefly); USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database. | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database. | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Tule River, Lower was collected at 2 monitoring sites [Tule River at North Fork Road - 588TRA144, Tule River at Road - 558TRAR92] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 8/16/2006-8/21/2009. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | Data for this line of evidence was collected as part of the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
89917 |
Region 5 |
Tule River, Lower |
||
| Pollutant: | Disulfoton |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a one line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the six samples exceed the Evaluation Guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of six samples exceeded Evaluation Guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 70891 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Disulfoton | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Tule River, Lower to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Disulfoton. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Southern San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Tulare Lake Basin) | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin Second Edition. rev. Jan 2004 | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The USEPA National Recommended Water Quality criterion for disulfoton in freshwater (0.05 ug/L) is an aquatic life maximum (instantaneous) level. | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Office of Science and Technology | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Tule River, Lower was collected at 2 monitoring sites [Tule River at North Fork Road - 588TRA144, Tule River at Road - 558TRAR92] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 7/5/2007-8/21/2009. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | Data for this line of evidence was collected as part of the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
86761 |
Region 5 |
Tule River, Lower |
||
| Pollutant: | Diuron |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the 16 samples exceed the Evaluation Guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of 16 samples exceeded the Evaluation Guideline and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 78606 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Diuron | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Aquatic Life Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 16 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Tule River, Lower to determine beneficial use support. None of the16 sample results are above the Diuron criterion of 1.3 ug/L. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Westside San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | Aquatic life water quality criteria derived via the UC Davis method: III. Diuron. Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 216:105-141. The acute exposure (4-day average) value for Diuron is 1.3 ug/L. | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Aquatic life water quality criteria derived via the UC Davis method: III. Diuron. Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 216:105-141. | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Tule River, Lower was collected from two monitoring sites [Tule River at North Fork Road 144 - 588TRA144; Tule River at Road 92 - 558TRAR92]. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected intermittently between 8/16/2006 and 8/21/2009. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | Data for this line of evidence was collected as part of the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
86762 |
Region 5 |
Tule River, Lower |
||
| Pollutant: | Endosulfan sulfate |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the 16 samples exceed the Criteria/Objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of 16 samples exceeded the Criteria/Objective and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 79426 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Endosulfan sulfate | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 16 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | State Water Board staff assessed ILRP data for Tule River, Lower to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 16 samples exceed the criterion for Endosulfan sulfate. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Southern San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The endosulfan sulfate criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.028 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Tule River, Lower was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Tule River at North Fork Road - 144588TRA144, Tule River at Road - 92558TRAR92] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 8/16/2006-8/21/2009. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | Data for this line of evidence was collected as part of the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
89919 |
Region 5 |
Tule River, Lower |
||
| Pollutant: | Endrin |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a one line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status.
Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the eight samples exceed the WARM water quality objective. Zero of one sediment sample exceed the evaluation guideline for WARM. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of the eight samples exceed the WARM water quality objective. Zero of one sediment sample exceed the evaluation guideline for WARM. This sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 70893 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Endrin | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 8 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Tule River, Lower to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 8 samples exceed the criterion for Endrin. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Southern San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Endrin criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.036 ug/L. (California Toxics Rule, 2000) | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Tule River, Lower was collected at 2 monitoring sites [Tule River at North Fork Road - 588TRA144, Tule River at Road - 558TRAR92] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 8/16/2006-8/21/2009. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | Data for this line of evidence was collected as part of the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 70892 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Endrin | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | The sample result did not exceed the evaluation guideline value (207 ug/Kg dry weight). | ||||
| Data Reference: | Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Waters shall not contain pesticides in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in pesticide concentrations in bottom sediments or aquatic life that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Tulare Lake Basin) | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | In freshwater sediments, the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for endrin is 207 ug/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence was collected at one monitoring site [ Tule River - Rd. 64 bridge - 558TUR090] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on 4/29/2008. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
86763 |
Region 5 |
Tule River, Lower |
||
| Pollutant: | Esfenvalerate/Fenvalerate |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1a one line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of zero sediment samples exceed the COLD evaluation guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of zero sediment samples exceed the COLD evaluation guideline, and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 70910 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Esfenvalerate/Fenvalerate | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | The sample was below both the reporting limit (1 ng/g dry weight) and the organic carbon-normalized evaluation guideline value (1.5 ug/g OC) and could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the listing policy. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Waters shall not contain pesticides in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in pesticide concentrations in bottom sediments or aquatic life that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Tulare Lake Basin) | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline value for esfenvalerate/fenvalerate, 0.15 ug/g OC, is one-tenth of the median lethal concentration for H. azteca (LC50; 1.5 ug/g OC). The LC50 (1.5 ug/g OC) is the geometric mean of OC-normalized LC50 values for esfenvalerate/fenvalerate from Amweg et al. (2005). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence was collected at one monitoring site [ Tule River - Rd. 64 bridge - 558TUR090] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on 4/29/2008. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
86764 |
Region 5 |
Tule River, Lower |
||
| Pollutant: | Fenpropathrin |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | "This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a two line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status.
Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of six water samples exceed the WARM evaluation guideline. Zero of zero sediment samples exceed the evaluation guideline for WARM. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of six water samples exceed the WARM evaluation guideline. Zero of zero sediment samples exceed the evaluation guideline for WARM. This sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met." |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 70912 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Fenpropathrin | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Tule River, Lower to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Fenpropathrin. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Southern San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin) | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The Basin Plan states: "Where valid testing has developed 96-hour LC50 values for aquatic organisms..., the Board will consider one tenth of this value for the most sensitive species tested as the upper limit (daily maximum) for the protection of aquatic life... or [O]ther available information on the pesticide..." The evaluation guideline for fenpropathrin, 0.22 ug/L, is one-tenth of the median lethal concentration (LC50 = 2.2 ug/L) for Lepomis macrochirus (Bluegill sunfish). (USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database) | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database. | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Tule River, Lower was collected at 2 monitoring sites [Tule River at North Fork Road - 588TRA144, Tule River at Road - 558TRAR92] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 5/11/2009-8/21/2009. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | Data for this line of evidence was collected as part of the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 78857 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Fenpropathrin | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed ILRP data for Tule River, Lower to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for fenpropathrin. The four available samples were not used in the assessment because the OC-normalized laboratory data reporting limit was above the objective, the available OC-normalized samples were below the laboratory data reporting limit, and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Southern San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Waters shall not contain pesticides in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in pesticide concentrations in bottom sediments or aquatic life that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin Second Edition. rev. Jan 2004 | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline value for fenpropathrin in sediment (0.12 ug/g OC), is one-tenth of the geometric mean (1.2 ug/g OC) of the organic carbon-normalized (OC) LC50 values for Hyalella azteca, an amphipod crustacean. The LC50 values were derived by Ding et al. (2011). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Toxicity of Sediment-Associated Pesticides to Chironomus dilutus and Hyalella azteca. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 61:83¿92. | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence was collected at two monitoring sites [Tule River at North Fork Road 144 - 588TRA144 and Tule River at Road 92 - 558TRAR92]. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected from 6/18/2008 to 8/21/2009. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | Data for this line of evidence was collected as part of the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
86815 |
Region 5 |
Tule River, Lower |
||
| Pollutant: | Glyphosate |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the 18 samples exceed the Evaluation Guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of 18 samples exceeded the Evaluation Guideline and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 70914 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Glyphosate | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 18 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Tule River, Lower to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 18 samples exceed the criterion for Glyphosate. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Southern San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Tulare Lake Basin) | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin Second Edition. rev. Jan 2004 | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The Basin Plan states: "Where valid testing has developed 96-hour LC50 values for aquatic organisms..., the Board will consider one tenth of this value for the most sensitive species tested as the upper limit (daily maximum) for the protection of aquatic life... or [O]ther available information on the pesticide..." The evaluation guideline for glyphosate, 5,500 ug/L, is one-tenth of the median lethal concentration (LC50 = 55,000 ug/L) for Chironimus plumosus (Midge). (USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database) | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database. | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Tule River, Lower was collected at 2 monitoring sites [Tule River at North Fork Road - 588TRA144, Tule River at Road - 558TRAR92] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 8/16/2006-8/21/2009. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | Data for this line of evidence was collected as part of the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
89836 |
Region 5 |
Tule River, Lower |
||
| Pollutant: | Heptachlor |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a one line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the zero samples exceed the Criteria/Objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of zero samples exceeded Criteria/Objective and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 70929 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Heptachlor | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Tule River, Lower to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Heptachlor. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Southern San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Heptachlor criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.0038 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Tule River, Lower was collected at 2 monitoring sites [Tule River at North Fork Road - 588TRA144, Tule River at Road - 558TRAR92] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 7/5/2007-8/21/2009. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | Data for this line of evidence was collected as part of the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
90213 |
Region 5 |
Tule River, Lower |
||
| Pollutant: | Heptachlor epoxide |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a one line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the zero samples exceed the Criteria/Objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of zero samples exceeded Criteria/Objective and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 70930 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Heptachlor epoxide | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Tule River, Lower to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Heptachlor epoxide. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Southern San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Heptachlor Epoxide criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.0038 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Tule River, Lower was collected at 2 monitoring sites [Tule River at North Fork Road - 588TRA144, Tule River at Road - 558TRAR92] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 7/5/2007-8/21/2009. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | Data for this line of evidence was collected as part of the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
89974 |
Region 5 |
Tule River, Lower |
||
| Pollutant: | Indicator Bacteria |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of two water samples exceed the evaluation guideline for E. coli. Two of 16 water samples exceed the evaluation guideline for fecal coliform and none of the 16 water samples exceed the evaluation guideline for total coliform. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of two water samples exceed the evaluation guideline for E. coli, and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. Two of 16 water samples exceed the evaluation guideline for fecal coliform and none of the 16 water samples exceed the evaluation guideline for total coliform, and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 26 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.2. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 70911 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Fecal Coliform | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Water Contact Recreation | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 16 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 2 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PATHOGEN MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Tule River, Lower to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 2 of 16 samples exceed the criterion for Coliform, Fecal. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Southern San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | In waters designated for contact recreation (REC-1), the fecal coliform concentration based on a minimum of not less than five samples for any 30-day period shall not exceed a geometric mean of 200/100 ml, nor shall more than ten percent of the total number of samples taken during any 30-day period exceed 400/100 ml. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Tulare Lake Basin) | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin Second Edition. rev. Jan 2004 | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Tule River, Lower was collected at 2 monitoring sites [Tule River at North Fork Road - 588TRA144, Tule River at Road - 558TRAR92] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 7/5/2007-8/21/2009. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | Data for this line of evidence was collected as part of the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 70894 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Escherichia coli (E. coli) | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Water Contact Recreation | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PATHOGEN MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Tule River, Lower to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Escherichia coli. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Southern San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Waters shall not contain chemical constituents in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Sacramento River and San Joaquin River Basins) | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin Second Edition. rev. Jan 2004 | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The USEPA recommended objective for single sample maximum allowable density of E. coli in freshwater designated beach areas is 235 MPN/100mL. | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria - 1986. EPA440/5-84-002 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Tule River, Lower was collected at 2 monitoring sites [Tule River at North Fork Road - 588TRA144, Tule River at Road - 558TRAR92] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 3/5/2008. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | Data for this line of evidence was collected as part of the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
70352 |
Region 5 |
Tule River, Lower |
||
| Pollutant: | Invasive Species |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollution |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.10 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.10 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Data from a 1969-71 study was compared to previous data from 1898, 1934, and 1940-41. The comparison showed that as non-native species increased over time, the number of native species decreased. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. This study was conducted from 1969-1971 at 167 locations. 2. Baseline data was from studies conducted in 1898, 1934, and 1940-1941. 3. Data was compared over time to show presence or not of non-native and native fish species. 4. In a 1898 survey: 9 native species were collected, 0 non-native species were collected; in a 1934 survey: 10 native species were collected and 4 non-native species were collected; in a 1940-1941 survey: 13 native species were collected and 8 non-native species were collected; and in a 1969-71 survey (this study): 6 native species were collected and 7 non-native species were collected. As the number of non-native fish species increased, the number of native fish species decreased over time. 5. It cannot be determined if the trend in water quality is expected to meet water standards by the next listing cycle. 6. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | This is a decision previously approved by the State Water Resources Control Board and the USEPA. No new data were assessed by the Regional Board for the current cycle. The decision has not changed. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 2831 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Invasive Species | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Population/Community Degradation | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Fish tissue analysis | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Two previous studies (conducted in 1969-71) (Moyle and Nichols, 1973; Moyle and Nichols, 1974) were used as baseline comparisons to a study conducted in 1986 (Brown and Moyle, 1993). Species percent collection data were the same for each baseline study at the sampling sites. The baseline studies and this study sampled the same geographic area, with similar sampling sizes. The baseline data was compared to the data collected in 1986. The comparison showed an overall net increase of native species observed at all sampling sites, as well as a net increase in non-native species. The data was based on the percentage of sites the species were collected at for each study. Overall, some native species were collected at more sites in 1986 (an increase in percent) than in the 1969-71 studies (Brown and Moyle, 1993). Some non-native species were collected at more sites (an increase in percent) than in the 1969-71 studies. Eight native species increased in the watersheds they were observed (collected at more sites over time) from 1969-71 to 1986, while 5 native species decreased (collected at less sites over time). Nine non-native species increased over time (collected at more sites over time) from 1969-71 to 1986, while 7 non-native species decreased (collected at less sites over time). | ||||
| Data Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. This objective applies regardless of whether the toxicity is caused by a single substance or the interactive effect of multiple substances. Compliance with this objective will be determined by analyses of indicator organisms, species diversity, population density, growth anomalies, and biotoxicity tests of appropriate duration or other methods as specified by the Regional Water Board. Taken from Region 5 Basin Plan, Page III-8.00, Water Quality Objectives. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Stanislaus, Tuolumne, Merced, Chowchilla, Fresno, San Joaquin, Kings, Kaweah, and Tule Rivers, between 90 and 1100 meters elevation. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Baseline studies: 37 samples taken during the summer and autumn of 1969, 1970 and 1971 and 130 samples were taken from 7/27-9/4/1970. Another survey was conducted from Sept. 1985 to Sept. 1986 at 186 sites. Only 156 sites were used from this study for statistical analyses, (Brown and Moyle, 1993). | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Changes in relative diversity and abundance of native species may also be driven by habitat alteration, flow changes, or hydromodification. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | Peer Reviewed Journal Articles. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
86816 |
Region 5 |
Tule River, Lower |
||
| Pollutant: | Lead |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a two line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status.
Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the 12 water samples exceed the evaluation guideline for WARM. Zero of one sediment sample exceed the evaluation guideline for WARM. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of the 12 water samples exceed the evaluation guideline for WARM. Zero of one sediment sample exceed the evaluation guideline for WARM. This sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 70932 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Lead | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 12 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed AgWaiver data for Tule River, Lower to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 samples exceed the criterion for Lead. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Southern San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The California Toxics Rule (CTR) lists criterion continuous concentrations (4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater. The chromium criterion in freshwater is hardness-dependent for each sample and varies based on the ambient hardness during sampling. Section (b)(1) in CTR contains the hardness-dependent formula for metals criteria. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Tule River, Lower was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Tule River at North Fork Road - 588TRA144, Tule River at Road - 558TRAR92] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 3/5/2008-8/21/2009. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | Data for this line of evidence was collected as part of the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 70931 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Lead | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | SWAMP data indicates that 0 of the sample results exceed the evaluation guideline value for Lead. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Tulare Lake Basin) | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | In freshwater sediments, the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for lead is 128 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence was collected at one monitoring site [ Tule River - Rd. 64 bridge - 558TUR090] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on 4/29/2008. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
90214 |
Region 5 |
Tule River, Lower |
||
| Pollutant: | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a one line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status.
Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the eight samples exceed the WARM water quality objective. Zero of one sediment sample exceed the WARM evaluation guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of the eight samples exceed the WARM water quality objective. Zero of one sediment sample exceed the WARM evaluation guideline. This sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 70933 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | One sediment sample was collected and analyzed for the SWAMP. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Waters shall not contain pesticides in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in pesticide concentrations in bottom sediments or aquatic life that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Tulare Lake Basin) | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | In freshwater sediments, the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for Lindane (gamma-HCH) is 4.99 ug/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence was collected at one monitoring site [ Tule River - Rd. 64 bridge - 558TUR090] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on 4/29/2008. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 70934 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 8 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Tule River, Lower to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 8 samples exceed the criterion for HCH, gamma. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Southern San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The gamma-HCH (Lindane) criterion maximum concentration to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.95 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Tule River, Lower was collected at 2 monitoring sites [Tule River at North Fork Road - 588TRA144, Tule River at Road - 558TRAR92] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 8/16/2006-8/21/2009. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | Data for this line of evidence was collected as part of the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
90271 |
Region 5 |
Tule River, Lower |
||
| Pollutant: | Linuron |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the 16 samples exceed the Evaluation Guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of 16 samples exceeded the Evaluation Guideline and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 70954 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Linuron | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 16 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Tule River, Lower to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 16 samples exceed the criterion for Linuron. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Southern San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Tulare Lake Basin) | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin Second Edition. rev. Jan 2004 | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The Basin Plan states: "Where valid testing has developed 96-hour LC50 values for aquatic organisms..., the Board will consider one tenth of this value for the most sensitive species tested as the upper limit (daily maximum) for the protection of aquatic life... or [O]ther available information on the pesticide..." The evaluation guideline for Linuro, 13.7 ug/L, is the EC50 for Navicula pelliculosa (freshwater diatom). (USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database) | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database. | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Tule River, Lower was collected at 2 monitoring sites [Tule River at North Fork Road - 588TRA144, Tule River at Road - 558TRAR92] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 8/16/2006-8/21/2009. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | Data for this line of evidence was collected as part of the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
86817 |
Region 5 |
Tule River, Lower |
||
| Pollutant: | Malathion |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1a one line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the zero samples exceed the Evaluation Guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of zero samples exceeded Evaluation Guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 70955 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Malathion | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Tule River, Lower to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Malathion. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Southern San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Tulare Lake Basin) | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin Second Edition. rev. Jan 2004 | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The Basin Plan states: "Where valid testing has developed 96-hour LC50 values for aquatic organisms..., the Board will consider one tenth of this value for the most sensitive species tested as the upper limit (daily maximum) for the protection of aquatic life... or [O]ther available information on the pesticide..." Aquatic life should not be affected unacceptably if the 4-day average concentration of Malathion, 0.028 ug/L, is not exceeded more than once every three years on the average (UC Davis Aquatic Life Criterion). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database. | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Tule River, Lower was collected at 2 monitoring sites [Tule River at North Fork Road - 588TRA144, Tule River at Road - 558TRAR92] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 7/5/2007-8/21/2009. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | Data for this line of evidence was collected as part of the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
86818 |
Region 5 |
Tule River, Lower |
||
| Pollutant: | Mercury |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1a one line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The single sediment samples does not exceed the COLD evaluation guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. The single sediment sample does not exceed the COLD evaluation guideline, and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met." |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 70956 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Mercury | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | SWAMP data indicates that 0 of the sample results exceed the evaluation guideline value for Mercury. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin) | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | In freshwater sediments, the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for mercury is 1.06 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence was collected at one monitoring site [ Tule River - Rd. 64 bridge - 558TUR090] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on 4/29/2008. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
90272 |
Region 5 |
Tule River, Lower |
||
| Pollutant: | Methidathion |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the 16 samples exceed the Evaluation Guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of 16 samples exceeded the Evaluation Guideline and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 70957 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Methidathion | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 16 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Tule River, Lower to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 16 samples exceed the criterion for Methidathion. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Southern San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Tulare Lake Basin) | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin Second Edition. rev. Jan 2004 | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The Basin Plan states: "Where valid testing has developed 96-hour LC50 values for aquatic organisms..., the Board will consider one tenth of this value for the most sensitive species tested as the upper limit (daily maximum) for the protection of aquatic life... or [O]ther available information on the pesticide..." The evaluation guideline for Methidathion, 0.86 ug/L, is the maximum acceptable toxicicant concentration (MATC) for Daphina magna (Water flea); USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database. | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database. | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Tule River, Lower was collected at 2 monitoring sites [Tule River at North Fork Road - 588TRA144, Tule River at Road - 558TRAR92] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 8/16/2006-8/21/2009. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | Data for this line of evidence was collected as part of the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
90273 |
Region 5 |
Tule River, Lower |
||
| Pollutant: | Methiocarb |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the 16 samples exceed the Evaluation Guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of 16 samples exceeded the Evaluation Guideline and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 70983 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Methiocarb | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 16 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Tule River, Lower to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 16 samples exceed the criterion for Methiocarb. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Southern San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Tulare Lake Basin) | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin Second Edition. rev. Jan 2004 | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The Basin Plan states: "Where valid testing has developed 96-hour LC50 values for aquatic organisms..., the Board will consider one tenth of this value for the most sensitive species tested as the upper limit (daily maximum) for the protection of aquatic life... or [O]ther available information on the pesticide..." The evaluation guideline for methiocarb, 43.6 ug/L, is one-tenth of the median lethal concentration (LC50 = 436 ug/L) for Oncorhyncus mykiss (Rainbow trout); USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database. | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database. | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Tule River, Lower was collected at 2 monitoring sites [Tule River at North Fork Road - 588TRA144, Tule River at Road - 558TRAR92] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 8/16/2006-8/21/2009. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | Data for this line of evidence was collected as part of the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
86864 |
Region 5 |
Tule River, Lower |
||
| Pollutant: | Methomyl |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | "This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1a one line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the 12 samples exceed the Evaluation Guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of 12 samples exceeded Evaluation Guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met." |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 70984 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Methomyl | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 12 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Tule River, Lower to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 samples exceed the criterion for Methomyl. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Southern San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Tulare Lake Basin) | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin Second Edition. rev. Jan 2004 | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The Basin Plan states: "Where valid testing has developed 96-hour LC50 values for aquatic organisms..., the Board will consider one tenth of this value for the most sensitive species tested as the upper limit (daily maximum) for the protection of aquatic life... or [O]ther available information on the pesticide..." The criteria continuous concentration for Methomyl in the San Joaquin River system is 0.5 ug/L (4-day average). (CDFG, 1996) | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database. | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Tule River, Lower was collected at 2 monitoring sites [Tule River at North Fork Road - 588TRA144, Tule River at Road - 558TRAR92] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 7/5/2007-8/21/2009. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | Data for this line of evidence was collected as part of the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
100306 |
Region 5 |
Tule River, Lower |
||
| Pollutant: | Methoxychlor |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the 18 samples exceed the Criteria/Objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of 18 samples exceeded the Criteria/Objective and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 70985 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Methoxychlor | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 18 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Tule River, Lower to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 18 samples exceed the criterion for Methoxychlor. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Southern San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Total identifiable persistent chlorinated hydrocarbon pesticides shall not be present in the water column at concentrations detectable within the accuracy of analytical methods approved by the Environmental Protection Agency or the Executive Officer (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin) | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Tule River, Lower was collected at 2 monitoring sites [Tule River at North Fork Road - 588TRA144, Tule River at Road - 558TRAR92] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 8/16/2006-8/21/2009. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | Data for this line of evidence was collected as part of the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
90274 |
Region 5 |
Tule River, Lower |
||
| Pollutant: | Methyl Parathion |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a one line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status.
Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the zero samples exceed each of the WARM and COLD water Evaluation Guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of the zero samples exceed each of the WARM and COLD water Evaluation Guideline, and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 70987 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Methyl Parathion | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | The sample was below both the reporting limit (10 ng/g dry weight) and the organic carbon-normalized evaluation guideline value (6 ug/g OC) and could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the listing policy. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Waters shall not contain pesticides in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in pesticide concentrations in bottom sediments or aquatic life that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Tulare Lake Basin) | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline value for methyl parathion, 0.6 ug/g OC, is one-tenth of the median lethal concentration for H. azteca (LC50; 6 ug/g OC). The LC50 is the geometric mean of OC-normalized LC50 values for methyl parathion (Ding et al. 2011). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Toxicity of Sediment-Associated Pesticides to Chironomus dilutus and Hyalella azteca. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 61:83¿92. | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence was collected at one monitoring site [ Tule River - Rd. 64 bridge - 558TUR090] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on 4/29/2008. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 70986 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Methyl Parathion | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Tule River, Lower to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Parathion, Methyl. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Southern San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin) | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The California Department of Fish and Game instantaneous aquatic life criterion for Methyl Parathion is 0.08 ug/L. | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Hazard Assessment of the Insecticide Methyl Parathion to Aquatic Organisms in the Sacramento River System. California Department of Fish and Game. Environmental Services Division. Administrative Report 92-1 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Tule River, Lower was collected at 2 monitoring sites [Tule River at North Fork Road - 588TRA144, Tule River at Road - 558TRAR92] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 7/5/2007-8/21/2009. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | Data for this line of evidence was collected as part of the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
90333 |
Region 5 |
Tule River, Lower |
||
| Pollutant: | Metolachlor |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a one line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the 14 samples exceed the Evaluation Guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of 14 samples exceeded Evaluation Guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 71005 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Metolachlor | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 14 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Tule River, Lower to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 14 samples exceed the criterion for Metolachlor. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Southern San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Tulare Lake Basin) | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin Second Edition. rev. Jan 2004 | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The Basin Plan states: "Where valid testing has developed 96-hour LC50 values for aquatic organisms..., the Board will consider one tenth of this value for the most sensitive species tested as the upper limit (daily maximum) for the protection of aquatic life... or [O]ther available information on the pesticide..." The evaluation guideline for Metolachlor, 10 ug/L, is an EC50 for Selenastrum capricornutum (Green algae); USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database. | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database. | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Tule River, Lower was collected at 2 monitoring sites [Tule River at North Fork Road - 588TRA144, Tule River at Road - 558TRAR92] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 7/5/2007-8/21/2009. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | Data for this line of evidence was collected as part of the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
86865 |
Region 5 |
Tule River, Lower |
||
| Pollutant: | Metribuzin |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the 18 samples exceed the Evaluation Guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of 18 samples exceeded the Evaluation Guideline and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 71006 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Metribuzin | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 18 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Tule River, Lower to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 18 samples exceed the criterion for Metribuzin. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Southern San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Tulare Lake Basin) | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin Second Edition. rev. Jan 2004 | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The Basin Plan states: "Where valid testing has developed 96-hour LC50 values for aquatic organisms..., the Board will consider one tenth of this value for the most sensitive species tested as the upper limit (daily maximum) for the protection of aquatic life... or [O]ther available information on the pesticide..." The evaluation guideline for Metribuzin, 8.09 ug/L, is an EC50 for Selenastrum capricornutum (Green algae). (USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database) | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database. | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Tule River, Lower was collected at 2 monitoring sites [Tule River at North Fork Road - 588TRA144, Tule River at Road - 558TRAR92] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 8/16/2006-8/21/2009. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | Data for this line of evidence was collected as part of the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
90334 |
Region 5 |
Tule River, Lower |
||
| Pollutant: | Mirex |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a one line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the 10 samples exceed the Evaluation Guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of 10 samples exceeded Evaluation Guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 79315 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Mirex | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 10 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | State Water Board staff assessed ILRP data for Tule River, Lower to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 10 samples exceed the criterion for Mirex. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Southern San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin: No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The criterion continuous concentration for Mirex is 0.001 ug/l from the National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Office of Science and Technology | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Tule River, Lower was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Tule River at North Fork Road - 144588TRA144, Tule River at Road - 92558TRAR92] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 6/18/2008-8/21/2009. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | Data for this line of evidence was collected as part of the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
90335 |
Region 5 |
Tule River, Lower |
||
| Pollutant: | Molinate |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a one line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the 10 samples exceed the Evaluation Guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of 10 samples exceeded Evaluation Guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 71007 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Molinate | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 10 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Tule River, Lower to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 10 samples exceed the criterion for Molinate. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Southern San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Tulare Lake Basin) | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin Second Edition. rev. Jan 2004 | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The Basin Plan states: "Where valid testing has developed 96-hour LC50 values for aquatic organisms..., the Board will consider one tenth of this value for the most sensitive species tested as the upper limit (daily maximum) for the protection of aquatic life... or [O]ther available information on the pesticide..." The evaluation guideline for Molinate, 600 ug/L, the maximum acceptable toxicicant concentration (MATC) for Daphnia magna (Water flea). (USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database) | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database. | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Tule River, Lower was collected at 2 monitoring sites [Tule River at North Fork Road - 588TRA144, Tule River at Road - 558TRAR92] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 7/5/2007-8/21/2009. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | Data for this line of evidence was collected as part of the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
86866 |
Region 5 |
Tule River, Lower |
||
| Pollutant: | Nickel |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single of evidence are necessary to assess listing status.
Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the 12 samples exceed the WARM water quality objective. Zero of one sediment sample exceed the evaluation guideline for WARM. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of the 12 samples exceed the WARM water quality objective. Zero of one sediment sample exceed the evaluation guideline for WARM. This sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met." |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 71025 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Nickel | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 12 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed AgWaiver data for Tule River, Lower to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 samples exceed the criterion for Nickel. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Southern San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The California Toxics Rule (CTR) lists criterion continuous concentrations (4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater. The chromium criterion in freshwater is hardness-dependent for each sample and varies based on the ambient hardness during sampling. Section (b)(1) in CTR contains the hardness-dependent formula for metals criteria. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Tule River, Lower was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Tule River at North Fork Road - 588TRA144, Tule River at Road - 558TRAR92] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 3/5/2008-8/21/2009. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | Data for this line of evidence was collected as part of the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 71008 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Nickel | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | SWAMP data indicates that 0 of the sample results exceed the evaluation guideline value for Nickel. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Sacramento River and San Joaquin River Basins) | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | In freshwater sediments, the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for nickel is 48.6 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence was collected at one monitoring site [ Tule River - Rd. 64 bridge - 558TUR090] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on 4/29/2008. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
71697 |
Region 5 |
Tule River, Lower |
||
| Pollutant: | Oxygen, Dissolved |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Six of the 55 samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Six of 55 samples exceeded the water quality objective, and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 71026 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Oxygen, Dissolved | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 18 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 3 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data to determine beneficial use support: Three of 18 sample results exceed the criterion for Oxygen, Dissolved. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Southern San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The minimum dissolved oxygen concentration for waters designated as COLD is 7.0 mg/L. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin) | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin Second Edition. rev. Jan 2004 | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence was collected at two monitoring sites [Tule River at North Fork Road-588TRA144 and Tule River at Road 92-558TRAR92]. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected monthly during summer months between 8/16/2006 and 8/21/2009. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | Data for this line of evidence was collected as part of the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 23191 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Oxygen, Dissolved | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Aquatic Life Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 37 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 3 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Thirty-seven samples were taken from the Tule River between 2003 and 2007. Three of the thirty-seven samples fell below the Water Quality Objective for minimum dissolved oxygen content in surface water. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Revised Draft of the 2007 Review of the Monitoring Data for the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Conditional Waiver Program | ||||
| Monitoring and Reporting Program, Order Nos. R5-2003-0826, R5-2005-0833, and R5-2008-0005 for Coalition Groups Under Resolution No. R5-2003-0105, Conditional Waiver of Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges From Irrigated Lands Within the Central Valley Region | |||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | From the Tulare Lake Basin Plan the (WARM) Warm Freshwater Habitat is a Minimum Dissolved Oxygen content of 5mg/L. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the Tule River in Tulare County. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected between June 2003 and January 2007. Samples were collected at bi-monthly and monthly intervals. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Data quality: Good. Monitoring was conducted in accordance with Central Valley Water Board Monitoring and Reporting Program (order number R5-2003-0826) requirements (CVRWQCB, 2003) | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
100257 |
Region 5 |
Tule River, Lower |
||
| Pollutant: | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1, a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The single sediment sample result does not exceed the evaluation guideline for the WARM beneficial use. The reporting limit for the single water sample result is greater than the evaluation guideline value, and it could not be assessed with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. The single sediment sample result does not exceed the evaluation guideline for WARM and the single water sample could not be assessed. This sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 59619 | ||||
| Pollutant: | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Zero of 0 samples exceeded the guideline. Sample results were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Southern San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (CVRWQCB, 2004). The total PCB criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.014 ug/L. This value corresponds to the sum of aroclors 1242, 1254, 1221, 1232, 1248, 1260, and 1016 (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin Second Edition. rev. Jan 2004 | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Samples collected at station 588TRA144 (Tule River at North Fork Road 144) and 558TRAR92 (Tule River at Road 92). | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Samples collected on 6/18/2008 and 7/30/2008. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | 1 | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 71028 | ||||
| Pollutant: | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Zero of 1 sample collected for Total PCBs exceeded the evaluation guideline. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Waters shall not contain substances in concentrations that result in the deposition of material that causes nuisance or adversely affects beneficial uses (Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin). | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin Second Edition. rev. Jan 2004 | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for total PCB is 676 ug/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data were collected at the following station 558TUR090 (Tule River - Rd. 64 bridge). | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected on 4/29/2008. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
86867 |
Region 5 |
Tule River, Lower |
||
| Pollutant: | Paraquat |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the 18 samples exceed the Evaluation Guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of 18 samples exceeded the Evaluation Guideline and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 79347 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Paraquat | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 18 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | State Water Board staff assessed ILRP data for Tule River, Lower to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 18 samples exceed the criterion for Paraquat. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Southern San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin: No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for paraquat is the EC50 1200 ug/L. (USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database. | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Tule River, Lower was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Tule River at North Fork Road - 144588TRA144, Tule River at Road - 92558TRAR92] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 8/16/2006-8/21/2009. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | Data for this line of evidence was collected as part of the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
90336 |
Region 5 |
Tule River, Lower |
||
| Pollutant: | Parathion |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a one line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the zero samples exceed the Evaluation Guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of zero samples exceeded Evaluation Guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 71027 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Parathion | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Tule River, Lower to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Parathion, Ethyl. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Southern San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin) | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The USEPA national ambient water quality chronic criterion (4-hour maximum) for parathion, is 0.013 µg/L, is for freshwater aquatic life. | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Office of Science and Technology | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Tule River, Lower was collected at 2 monitoring sites [Tule River at North Fork Road - 588TRA144, Tule River at Road - 558TRAR92] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 7/30/2008. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | Data for this line of evidence was collected as part of the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
86919 |
Region 5 |
Tule River, Lower |
||
| Pollutant: | Permethrin, total |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a two line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status.
Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the zero water samples exceed the evaluation guideline for WARM. Zero of the zero sediment samples exceed the evaluation guideline for WARM. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of the zero water samples exceed the evaluation guideline for WARM. Zero of the zero sediment samples exceed the evaluation guideline for WARM. This sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 71045 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Permethrin, total | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | The sample was below both the reporting limit (4 ng/g dry weight) and the organic carbon-normalized evaluation guideline value (8.9 ug/g OC) and could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the listing policy. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Waters shall not contain pesticides in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in pesticide concentrations in bottom sediments or aquatic life that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Tulare Lake Basin) | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline value for permethrin, 0.89 ug/g OC, is one-tenth of the median lethal concentration for H. azteca (LC50; 8.9 ug/g OC). The LC50 is the geometric mean of OC-normalized LC50 values for permethrin (Amweg et al. 2005). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence was collected at one monitoring site [ Tule River - Rd. 64 bridge - 558TUR090] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on 4/29/2008. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 71029 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Permethrin, total | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Tule River, Lower to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Permethrin, Total. Ten samples were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Southern San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin) | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The Basin Plan states: "Where valid testing has developed 96-hour LC50 values for aquatic organisms..., the Board will consider one tenth of this value for the most sensitive species tested as the upper limit (daily maximum) for the protection of aquatic life... or [O]ther available information on the pesticide..." Aquatic life should not be affected unacceptably if the 4-day average concentration of Permethrin, 0.0002 ug/L, is not exceeded more than once every three years on the average (UC Davis Aquatic Life Criterion). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database. | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Tule River, Lower was collected at 2 monitoring sites [Tule River at North Fork Road - 588TRA144, Tule River at Road - 558TRAR92] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 7/5/2007-8/21/2009. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | Data for this line of evidence was collected as part of the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 78917 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Permethrin, total | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed ILRP data for Tule River, Lower to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for permethrin, total. The four available samples were not used in the assessment because the OC-normalized laboratory data reporting limit was above the objective, the available OC-normalized samples were below the laboratory data reporting limit, and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Southern San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Waters shall not contain pesticides in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in pesticide concentrations in bottom sediments or aquatic life that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin Second Edition. rev. Jan 2004 | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline value for permethrin in sediment (0.89 ug/g OC), is one-tenth of the geometric mean (8.9 ug/g OC) of the organic carbon-normalized (OC) LC50 values for Hyalella azteca, an amphipod crustacean. The LC50 values were derived by Amweg et al. (2005). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence was collected at two monitoring sites [Tule River at North Fork Road 144 - 588TRA144 and Tule River at Road 92 - 558TRAR92]. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected from 6/18/2008 to 8/21/2009. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | Data for this line of evidence was collected as part of the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
100307 |
Region 5 |
Tule River, Lower |
||
| Pollutant: | Phorate |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the 16 samples exceed the Evaluation Guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of 16 samples exceeded the Evaluation Guideline and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 71046 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Phorate | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 16 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Tule River, Lower to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 16 samples exceed the criterion for Phorate. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Southern San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Tulare Lake Basin) | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin Second Edition. rev. Jan 2004 | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The Basin Plan states: "Where valid testing has developed 96-hour LC50 values for aquatic organisms..., the Board will consider one tenth of this value for the most sensitive species tested as the upper limit (daily maximum) for the protection of aquatic life... or [O]ther available information on the pesticide..." The evaluation guideline for phorate, 0.2 ug/L, is one-tenth of the median lethal concentration (LC50 = 2.0 ug/L) for Lepomis macrochirus (Bluegill sunfish). (USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database) | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database. | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Tule River, Lower was collected at 2 monitoring sites [Tule River at North Fork Road - 588TRA144, Tule River at Road - 558TRAR92] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 8/16/2006-8/21/2009. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | Data for this line of evidence was collected as part of the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
90392 |
Region 5 |
Tule River, Lower |
||
| Pollutant: | Phosmet |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the 16 samples exceed the Evaluation Guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of 16 samples exceeded the Evaluation Guideline and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 71047 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Phosmet | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 16 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Tule River, Lower to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 16 samples exceed the criterion for Phosmet. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Southern San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Tulare Lake Basin) | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin Second Edition. rev. Jan 2004 | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The Basin Plan states: "Where valid testing has developed 96-hour LC50 values for aquatic organisms..., the Board will consider one tenth of this value for the most sensitive species tested as the upper limit (daily maximum) for the protection of aquatic life... or [O]ther available information on the pesticide..." The evaluation guideline for Phosmet, 5.6 ug/L, is the EC50 for Daphnia magna (Water flea). (USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database) | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database. | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Tule River, Lower was collected at 2 monitoring sites [Tule River at North Fork Road - 588TRA144, Tule River at Road - 558TRAR92] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 8/16/2006-8/21/2009. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | Data for this line of evidence was collected as part of the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
90393 |
Region 5 |
Tule River, Lower |
||
| Pollutant: | Prometryn |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a one line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the zero samples exceed the Evaluation Guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of zero samples exceeded Evaluation Guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 71048 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Prometryn | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Tule River, Lower to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Prometryn. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Southern San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Tulare Lake Basin) | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin Second Edition. rev. Jan 2004 | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The Basin Plan states: "Where valid testing has developed 96-hour LC50 values for aquatic organisms..., the Board will consider one tenth of this value for the most sensitive species tested as the upper limit (daily maximum) for the protection of aquatic life... or [O]ther available information on the pesticide..." The evaluation guideline for Prometryn, 1 ug/L, is the EC50 for Navicula pelliculosa (freshwater diatom). (USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database) | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database. | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Tule River, Lower was collected at 2 monitoring sites [Tule River at North Fork Road - 588TRA144, Tule River at Road - 558TRAR92] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 7/5/2007-8/21/2009. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | Data for this line of evidence was collected as part of the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
86921 |
Region 5 |
Tule River, Lower |
||
| Pollutant: | Selenium |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1a one line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the 10 samples exceed the Criteria/Objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of 10 samples exceeded Criteria/Objective and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 71049 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Selenium | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 10 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Tule River, Lower to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 10 samples exceed the criterion for Selenium. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Southern San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The selenium criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.005 mg/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Tule River, Lower was collected at 2 monitoring sites [Tule River at North Fork Road - 588TRA144, Tule River at Road - 558TRAR92] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 7/5/2007-8/21/2009. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | Data for this line of evidence was collected as part of the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
86922 |
Region 5 |
Tule River, Lower |
||
| Pollutant: | Simazine |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the 18 samples exceed the Evaluation Guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of 18 samples exceeded the Evaluation Guideline and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 71066 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Simazine | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 18 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Tule River, Lower to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 18 samples exceed the criterion for Simazine. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Southern San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Tulare Lake Basin) | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin Second Edition. rev. Jan 2004 | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The Basin Plan states: "Where valid testing has developed 96-hour LC50 values for aquatic organisms..., the Board will consider one tenth of this value for the most sensitive species tested as the upper limit (daily maximum) for the protection of aquatic life... or [O]ther available information on the pesticide..." The evaluation guideline for Simazine, 90 ug/L, is the EC50 for Navicula pelliculosa (freshwater diatom). (USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database) | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database. | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Tule River, Lower was collected at 2 monitoring sites [Tule River at North Fork Road - 588TRA144, Tule River at Road - 558TRAR92] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 8/16/2006-8/21/2009. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | Data for this line of evidence was collected as part of the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
90447 |
Region 5 |
Tule River, Lower |
||
| Pollutant: | Thiobencarb/Bolero |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the 18 samples exceed the Evaluation Guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of 18 samples exceeded the Evaluation Guideline and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 71068 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Thiobencarb/Bolero | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 18 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Tule River, Lower to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 18 samples exceed the criterion for Thiobencarb. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Southern San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Tulare Lake Basin) | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin Second Edition. rev. Jan 2004 | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The Basin Plan states: "Where valid testing has developed 96-hour LC50 values for aquatic organisms..., the Board will consider one tenth of this value for the most sensitive species tested as the upper limit (daily maximum) for the protection of aquatic life... or [O]ther available information on the pesticide..." The evaluation guideline for Thiobencarb, 1.4 ug/L, is a maximum acceptable toxicicant concentration (MATC) calculated for Daphnia magna (Water flea). (USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database) | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database. | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Tule River, Lower was collected at 2 monitoring sites [Tule River at North Fork Road - 588TRA144, Tule River at Road - 558TRAR92] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 8/16/2006-8/21/2009. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | Data for this line of evidence was collected as part of the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
90448 |
Region 5 |
Tule River, Lower |
||
| Pollutant: | Total DDT (sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD) |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a one line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the one samples exceed the Evaluation Guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of one samples exceeded Evaluation Guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 71070 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Total DDT (sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD) | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | The sample result did not exceed the evaluation guideline value (572 ug/Kg dry weight). | ||||
| Data Reference: | Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Waters shall not contain pesticides in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in pesticide concentrations in bottom sediments or aquatic life that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Tulare Lake Basin) | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | In freshwater sediments, the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for total DDTs (sum DDT + sum DDD + sum DDE) is 572 ug/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence was collected at one monitoring site [ Tule River - Rd. 64 bridge - 558TUR090] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on 4/29/2008. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
90449 |
Region 5 |
Tule River, Lower |
||
| Pollutant: | Toxaphene |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a one line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the zero samples exceed the Criteria/Objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of zero samples exceeded Criteria/Objective and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 71089 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Toxaphene | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Tule River, Lower to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Toxaphene. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Southern San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Toxaphene criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.0002 ug/L. (California Toxics Rule, 2000) | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Tule River, Lower was collected at 2 monitoring sites [Tule River at North Fork Road - 588TRA144, Tule River at Road - 558TRAR92] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 7/5/2007-8/21/2009. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | Data for this line of evidence was collected as part of the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
86977 |
Region 5 |
Tule River, Lower |
||
| Pollutant: | Trifluralin |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1a one line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the 10 samples exceed the Evaluation Guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of 10 samples exceeded Evaluation Guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 71090 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Trifluralin | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 10 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Tule River, Lower to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 10 samples exceed the criterion for Trifluralin. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Southern San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Tulare Lake Basin) | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin Second Edition. rev. Jan 2004 | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The Basin Plan states: "Where valid testing has developed 96-hour LC50 values for aquatic organisms..., the Board will consider one tenth of this value for the most sensitive species tested as the upper limit (daily maximum) for the protection of aquatic life... or [O]ther available information on the pesticide..." The evaluation guideline for Trifluralin, 1.58 ug/L, is a maximum acceptable toxicicant concentration (MATC) calculated for Oncorhyncus mykiss (Rainbow trout). USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database) | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database. | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Tule River, Lower was collected at 2 monitoring sites [Tule River at North Fork Road - 588TRA144, Tule River at Road - 558TRAR92] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 3/5/2008-8/21/2009. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | Data for this line of evidence was collected as part of the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
86978 |
Region 5 |
Tule River, Lower |
||
| Pollutant: | Zinc |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a two line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status.
Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the 12 samples exceed the WARM water quality objective. Zero of one sediment sample exceed the evaluation guideline for WARM. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of the 12 samples exceed the WARM water quality objective. Zero of one sediment sample exceed the evaluation guideline for WARM. This sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 71092 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Zinc | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 12 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed AgWaiver data for Tule River, Lower to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 samples exceed the criterion for Zinc. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Southern San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The California Toxics Rule (CTR) lists criterion continuous concentrations (4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater. The chromium criterion in freshwater is hardness-dependent for each sample and varies based on the ambient hardness during sampling. Section (b)(1) in CTR contains the hardness-dependent formula for metals criteria. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Tule River, Lower was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Tule River at North Fork Road - 588TRA144, Tule River at Road - 558TRAR92] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 3/5/2008-8/21/2009. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | Data for this line of evidence was collected as part of the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 71091 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Zinc | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | SWAMP data indicates that 0 of the sample results exceed the evaluation guideline value for Zinc. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Sacramento River and San Joaquin River Basins) | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | In freshwater sediments, the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for zinc is 459 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence was collected at one monitoring site [ Tule River - Rd. 64 bridge - 558TUR090] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on 4/29/2008. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
90391 |
Region 5 |
Tule River, Lower |
||
| Pollutant: | pH |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. One of the 23 samples exceed the Criteria/Objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. One of 23 samples exceeded the Criteria/Objective and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 26 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.2. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 79425 | ||||
| Pollutant: | pH | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 23 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | State Water Board staff assessed ILRP data for Tule River, Lower to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 1 of 23 samples exceed the criterion for pH. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Southern San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin: pH should not be lower than 6.5 or higher than 8.5. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Tule River, Lower was collected at 4 monitoring sites [ Tule River at McCarthy Check - 558TRAMCC, Tule River at North Fork Road - 144588TRA144, Tule River at Road - 92558TRAR92, Tule River at Woods-Central Ditch Diversion - 558TRAWCD] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 7/12/2004-8/21/2009. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | Data for this line of evidence was collected as part of the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
86920 |
Region 5 |
Tule River, Lower |
||
| Pollutant: | Toxicity |
| Final Listing Decision: | List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Sources: | A Source Unknown |
| Expected TMDL Completion Date: | 2027 |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Three lines of evidence are available to assess this pollutant. Six of 25 water samples exhibited significant toxicity. The toxicity tests included survival of Ceriodaphnia dubia and Pimephales promelas, and cell count of Selenastrum capricornutum. Two of fifteen sediment samples tested with Hyalella azteca exhibited significant toxicity. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification for placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Six of 25 water samples exhibited significant toxicity and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Two of 15 sediment samples exhibited significant toxicity and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are exceeded and a pollutant contributes to or causes the problem. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 59289 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Toxicity | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Toxicity | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 25 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 6 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | TOXICITY TESTING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Twenty-five samples were collected to evaluate water toxicity. Six of the samples exhibited significant toxicity. The toxicity tests included survival of Ceriodaphnia dubia and Pimephales promelas, and cell count of Selenastrum capricornutum. One sample can have multiple toxicity test results but will be counted only once. One sample is defined as being collected on the same day at the same location with the same lab sample id (if provided). | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Southern San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. Region 5 Basin Plan. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | Toxicity is defined as a statistically significant effect in the sample exposure compared to the control using EPA-recommended hypothesis testing. For SWAMP data exceedances are counted with the significant effect code SL. SL is defined as the result being significant compared to the negative control based on a statistical test, less than stated the alpha level, AND less than the evaluation threshold. This data set reports a simple pass/fail (Yes/No) code to report toxicity that is equivalent to the SWAMP SL code. | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Short-term Methods for Estimating the Chronic Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters to Freshwater Organisms. Fourth Edition. Office of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, D.C. EPA-821-R-02-013 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at Tule River at McCarthy Check, Tule River at North Fork Road 144, Tule River at Road 92, and Tule River at Woods-Central Ditch Diversion. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected from August 2004 to August 2009. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Collected under the Management Plan for the South San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 59119 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Toxicity | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Toxicity | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | TOXICITY TESTING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | One sample was collected to evaluate sediment toxicity. The sample did not exhibit significant toxicity. The toxicity test included survival of Hyalella azteca. One sample can have multiple toxicity test results but will be counted only once. One sample is defined as being collected on the same day at the same location with the same lab sample id (if provided). | ||||
| Data Reference: | Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. Region 5 Basin Plan. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin Second Edition. rev. Jan 2004 | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | Toxicity is defined as a statistically significant effect in the sample exposure compared to the control using EPA-recommended hypothesis testing. For SWAMP data exceedances are counted with the significant effect code SL. SL is defined as the result being significant compared to the negative control based on a statistical test, less than stated the alpha level, AND less than the evaluation threshold. | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Methods for Measuring the Toxicity and Bioaccumulation of Sediment-associated Contaminants with Freshwater Invertebrates, Second Edition. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research and Development, Duluth, MI , U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water, Washington, DC EPA-600/R-99/064 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | The sample was collected at station 558TUR090. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The sample was collected in April 2008. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | All data was collected following the Standard Operating Procedures and Data Quality Objectives outlined in the SWAMP QAMP, (Puckett, 2002). QA data are included in submission. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 59288 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Toxicity | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Toxicity | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 14 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 2 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | TOXICITY TESTING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Fourteen samples were collected to evaluate sediment toxicity. Two of the samples exhibited significant toxicity. The toxicity tests included survival of Hyalella azteca. One sample can have multiple toxicity test results but will be counted only once. One sample is defined as being collected on the same day at the same location with the same lab sample id (if provided). | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Southern San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. Region 5 Basin Plan. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | Toxicity is defined as a statistically significant effect in the sample exposure compared to the control using EPA-recommended hypothesis testing. For SWAMP data exceedances are counted using the significant effect code: S equals significant, SG equals significantly greater and SL equals significantly lower. If a sample has any one of these codes, it will be considered an exceedance. | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Methods for Measuring the Toxicity and Bioaccumulation of Sediment-associated Contaminants with Freshwater Invertebrates, Second Edition. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research and Development, Duluth, MI , U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water, Washington, DC EPA-600/R-99/064 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at Tule River at McCarthy Check, Tule River at North Fork Road 144, Tule River at Road 92, and Tule River at Woods-Central Ditch Diversion. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected from August 2004 to August 2009. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Collected under the Management Plan for the South San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||