Water Body Name: | Elk Bayou (Tulare County) |
Water Body ID: | CAR5581000020080808204645 |
Water Body Type: | River & Stream |
DECISION ID |
128770 |
Region 5 |
Elk Bayou (Tulare County) |
||
Pollutant: | Dimethoate |
Final Listing Decision: | Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2018) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Reason for Delisting: | Applicable WQS attained; due to change in WQS |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for removal from the CWA section 303(d) List under section 4.11 of the Listing Policy. Under this section when all other delisting factors do not result in the delisting of a water segment but information indicates attainment of standards, a water segment shall be evaluated to determine whether the weight of evidence demonstrates that water quality standard is attained. If the weight of evidence indicates attainment, the water segment shall be removed from the CWA section 303(d) List. Previously considered water quality data was reevaluated according to new guidelines as part of this assessment. Line of evidence #26103 was replaced by #80883. Line of evidence #63402 was replaced by #222768 and #222791 Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification for removing this water segment-pollutant combination from 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 following information indicates that the water quality standard is attained: Zero of 12 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline. A change in the water quality criterion demonstrates attainment of water quality objectives. 3. This process is scientifically defensible and reproducible. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant 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: | 80833 | ||||
Pollutant: | Dimethoate | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
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 Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program data for Elk Bayou (Tulare County), between June 2005 and August 2006, to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Dimethoate. | ||||
Data Reference: | Revised Draft of the 2007 Review of the Monitoring Data for the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Conditional Waiver Program | ||||
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 Elk Bayou (Tulare County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [Elk Bayou - 558ELKSP5, Elk Bayou at Road 96 (SSJWQC)] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Water samples were collected generally every two weeks or monthly between June 2005 and August 2006. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
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. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | 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 | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 222791 | ||||
Pollutant: | Dimethoate | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed ILRP_SSJWQC data for Elk Bayou (Tulare County) to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 5 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Dimethoate. Although a total of 9 samples were collected, 4 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the water quality threshold and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. | ||||
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. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin Third Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Dimethoate is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 0.5 ug/L for a invertebrate (acute). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (558ELKSP5). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2006-07-19 to 2009-07-21 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Data was previously assessed without a QAPP. Data reassessed without a QAPP for consistency. Data for this line of evidence was collected as part of the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | This is a placeholder for previously assessed data that does not have quality assurance information but would require it under newly developed policies. These LOEs were previously assessed and approved at the Regional, State and Federal level in past cycles. The LOEs needed to be moved and/or reassessed but required this reference code for movement within the decision making database. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 222768 | ||||
Pollutant: | Dimethoate | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
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: | Water Board staff assessed ILRP_SSJWQC data for Elk Bayou (Tulare County) to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Dimethoate. Although a total of 2 samples were collected, 1 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the water quality threshold and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. | ||||
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. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin Third Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Dimethoate is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 0.5 ug/L for a invertebrate (acute). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (558EBAR96). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2009-07-15 to 2009-07-15 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Data was previously assessed without a QAPP. Data reassessed without a QAPP for consistency. Data for this line of evidence was collected as part of the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | This is a placeholder for previously assessed data that does not have quality assurance information but would require it under newly developed policies. These LOEs were previously assessed and approved at the Regional, State and Federal level in past cycles. The LOEs needed to be moved and/or reassessed but required this reference code for movement within the decision making database. | ||||
DECISION ID |
128774 |
Region 5 |
Elk Bayou (Tulare County) |
||
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)(2018) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. LOE 63457 has been replaced by LOE 222941 and LOE 222915 due to a reassessment of data using a U.S. EPA aquatic life benchmark. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 222941 | ||||
Pollutant: | Alachlor | ||||
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: | Water Board staff assessed ILRP_SSJWQC data for Elk Bayou (Tulare County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Alachlor. | ||||
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. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin Third Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Alachlor is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 1.64 ug/L for a nonvascular plant (acute). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (558EBAR96) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2009-07-15 and 2009-07-15 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Data was previously assessed without a QAPP. Data reassessed without a QAPP for consistency. Data for this line of evidence was collected as part of the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | This is a placeholder for previously assessed data that does not have quality assurance information but would require it under newly developed policies. These LOEs were previously assessed and approved at the Regional, State and Federal level in past cycles. The LOEs needed to be moved and/or reassessed but required this reference code for movement within the decision making database. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 222915 | ||||
Pollutant: | Alachlor | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
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: | Water Board staff assessed ILRP_SSJWQC data for Elk Bayou (Tulare County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Alachlor. | ||||
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. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin Third Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Alachlor is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 1.64 ug/L for a nonvascular plant (acute). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (558ELKSP5) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2006-08-07 and 2009-07-21 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Data was previously assessed without a QAPP. Data reassessed without a QAPP for consistency. Data for this line of evidence was collected as part of the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | This is a placeholder for previously assessed data that does not have quality assurance information but would require it under newly developed policies. These LOEs were previously assessed and approved at the Regional, State and Federal level in past cycles. The LOEs needed to be moved and/or reassessed but required this reference code for movement within the decision making database. | ||||
DECISION ID |
128775 |
Region 5 |
Elk Bayou (Tulare County) |
||
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)(2018) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. LOE 63458 has been replaced by LOE 222701 and LOE 222724 due to a reassessment of data using a U.S. EPA aquatic life benchmark. |
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: | 222724 | ||||
Pollutant: | Aldicarb | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed ILRP_SSJWQC data for Elk Bayou (Tulare County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 5 samples exceeded the water quality threshold 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: | 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. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin Third Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Aldicarb is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 0.46 ug/L for a fish (chronic). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (558ELKSP5) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2006-07-19 and 2009-07-21 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Data was previously assessed without a QAPP. Data reassessed without a QAPP for consistency. Data for this line of evidence was collected as part of the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | This is a placeholder for previously assessed data that does not have quality assurance information but would require it under newly developed policies. These LOEs were previously assessed and approved at the Regional, State and Federal level in past cycles. The LOEs needed to be moved and/or reassessed but required this reference code for movement within the decision making database. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 222701 | ||||
Pollutant: | Aldicarb | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
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: | Water Board staff assessed ILRP_SSJWQC data for Elk Bayou (Tulare County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold 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: | 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. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin Third Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Aldicarb is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 0.46 ug/L for a fish (chronic). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (558EBAR96) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2009-07-15 and 2009-07-15 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Data was previously assessed without a QAPP. Data reassessed without a QAPP for consistency. Data for this line of evidence was collected as part of the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | This is a placeholder for previously assessed data that does not have quality assurance information but would require it under newly developed policies. These LOEs were previously assessed and approved at the Regional, State and Federal level in past cycles. The LOEs needed to be moved and/or reassessed but required this reference code for movement within the decision making database. | ||||
DECISION ID |
128757 |
Region 5 |
Elk Bayou (Tulare County) |
||
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)(2018) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. LOE 63385 has been replaced by LOE 222771 and LOE 222775 due to a reassessment of data using a U.S. EPA aquatic life benchmark. |
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: | 222771 | ||||
Pollutant: | Atrazine | ||||
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: | Water Board staff assessed ILRP_SSJWQC data for Elk Bayou (Tulare County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceeded the water quality threshold 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: | 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. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin Third Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Atrazine is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of <1 ug/L for a nonvascular plant (acute). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (558EBAR96) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2009-07-15 and 2009-07-15 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Data was previously assessed without a QAPP. Data reassessed without a QAPP for consistency. Data for this line of evidence was collected as part of the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | This is a placeholder for previously assessed data that does not have quality assurance information but would require it under newly developed policies. These LOEs were previously assessed and approved at the Regional, State and Federal level in past cycles. The LOEs needed to be moved and/or reassessed but required this reference code for movement within the decision making database. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 222775 | ||||
Pollutant: | Atrazine | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
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: | Water Board staff assessed ILRP_SSJWQC data for Elk Bayou (Tulare County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold 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: | 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. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin Third Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Atrazine is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of <1 ug/L for a nonvascular plant (acute). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (558ELKSP5) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2006-08-07 and 2009-07-21 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Data was previously assessed without a QAPP. Data reassessed without a QAPP for consistency. Data for this line of evidence was collected as part of the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | This is a placeholder for previously assessed data that does not have quality assurance information but would require it under newly developed policies. These LOEs were previously assessed and approved at the Regional, State and Federal level in past cycles. The LOEs needed to be moved and/or reassessed but required this reference code for movement within the decision making database. | ||||
DECISION ID |
125521 |
Region 5 |
Elk Bayou (Tulare County) |
||
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)(2018) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. LOE 22097 has been replaced by LOE 214914 due to a reassessment of data using a U.S. EPA aquatic life benchmark. LOE 63387 has been replaced by LOE 214915 due to a reassessment of data using a U.S. EPA aquatic life benchmark. |
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: | 214915 | ||||
Pollutant: | Bifenthrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
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 Elk Bayou (Tulare County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Bifenthrin. Three 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. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins; Fifth Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The chronic concentration goal for Bifenthrin is 0.1 ng/L (expressed as a 4-day average). If the freely dissolved concentrations of Bifenthrin were reported or could be calculated then these values were used for this assessment. In the absence of freely dissolved concentrations, total concentrations were used. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Water Quality Criteria Report for Bifenthrin | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Amendment to the Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento River and San Joaquin River Basins for the Control of Pyrethroid Pesticide Discharges | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Elk Bayou (Tulare County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [Elk Bayou - 558ELKSP5, Elk Bayou at Road 96 (SSJWQC)] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/13/2008-7/15/2009. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Data for this line of evidence was collected as part of the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | This is a placeholder for previously assessed data that does not have quality assurance information but would require it under newly developed policies. These LOEs were previously assessed and approved at the Regional, State and Federal level in past cycles. The LOEs needed to be moved and/or reassessed but required this reference code for movement within the decision making database. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 214914 | ||||
Pollutant: | Bifenthrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
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 Elk Bayou (Tulare County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 1 of 5 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Bifenthrin. | ||||
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: | 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; Fifth Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The chronic concentration goal for Bifenthrin is 0.1 ng/L (expressed as a 4-day average). If the freely dissolved concentrations of Bifenthrin were reported or could be calculated then these values were used for this assessment. In the absence of freely dissolved concentrations, total concentrations were used. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Water Quality Criteria Report for Bifenthrin | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Amendment to the Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento River and San Joaquin River Basins for the Control of Pyrethroid Pesticide Discharges | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples collected from Elk Bayou at Road 96. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected at various intervals (monthly) from June 2005 through July 2006. | ||||
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): | This is a placeholder for previously assessed data that does not have quality assurance information but would require it under newly developed policies. These LOEs were previously assessed and approved at the Regional, State and Federal level in past cycles. The LOEs needed to be moved and/or reassessed but required this reference code for movement within the decision making database. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 78639 | ||||
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 Elk Bayou (Tulare County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for bifenthrin. The two 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 one monitoring site [Elk Bayou - 558ELKSP5]. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected from 4/21/2009 to 10/14/2009. | ||||
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 |
128766 |
Region 5 |
Elk Bayou (Tulare County) |
||
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)(2018) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. LOE 63388 has been replaced by LOE 222837 and LOE 222817 due to a reassessment of data using a U.S. EPA aquatic life benchmark. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 222837 | ||||
Pollutant: | Bromacil | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
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: | Water Board staff assessed ILRP_SSJWQC data for Elk Bayou (Tulare County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold 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: | 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. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin Third Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Bromacil is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 6.8 ug/L for a nonvascular plant (acute). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (558ELKSP5) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2006-08-07 and 2009-07-21 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Data was previously assessed without a QAPP. Data reassessed without a QAPP for consistency. Data for this line of evidence was collected as part of the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | This is a placeholder for previously assessed data that does not have quality assurance information but would require it under newly developed policies. These LOEs were previously assessed and approved at the Regional, State and Federal level in past cycles. The LOEs needed to be moved and/or reassessed but required this reference code for movement within the decision making database. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 222817 | ||||
Pollutant: | Bromacil | ||||
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: | Water Board staff assessed ILRP_SSJWQC data for Elk Bayou (Tulare County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceeded the water quality threshold 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: | 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. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin Third Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Bromacil is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 6.8 ug/L for a nonvascular plant (acute). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (558EBAR96) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2009-07-15 and 2009-07-15 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Data was previously assessed without a QAPP. Data reassessed without a QAPP for consistency. Data for this line of evidence was collected as part of the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | This is a placeholder for previously assessed data that does not have quality assurance information but would require it under newly developed policies. These LOEs were previously assessed and approved at the Regional, State and Federal level in past cycles. The LOEs needed to be moved and/or reassessed but required this reference code for movement within the decision making database. | ||||
DECISION ID |
125523 |
Region 5 |
Elk Bayou (Tulare County) |
||
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)(2018) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Previously considered water quality data was reevaluated according to new guidelines as part of this assessment. Line of evidence #63395 was replaced by #214916. Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. |
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: | 78772 | ||||
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 Elk Bayou (Tulare County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for cyfluthrin. The two 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 one monitoring site [Elk Bayou - 558ELKSP5]. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected from 4/21/2009 to 10/14/2009. | ||||
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: | 214916 | ||||
Pollutant: | Cyfluthrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
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 Elk Bayou (Tulare County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Cyfluthrin, total. Three 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. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins; Fifth Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The chronic concentration goal for Cyfluthrin is 0.2 ng/L (expressed as a 4-day average). If the freely dissolved concentrations of Cyfluthrin were reported or could be calculated then these values were used for this assessment. In the absence of freely dissolved concentrations, total concentrations were used. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Water Quality Criteria Report for Bifenthrin | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Amendment to the Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento River and San Joaquin River Basins for the Control of Pyrethroid Pesticide Discharges | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Elk Bayou (Tulare County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [Elk Bayou - 558ELKSP5, Elk Bayou at Road 96 (SSJWQC)] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/13/2008-7/15/2009. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Data for this line of evidence was collected as part of the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | This is a placeholder for previously assessed data that does not have quality assurance information but would require it under newly developed policies. These LOEs were previously assessed and approved at the Regional, State and Federal level in past cycles. The LOEs needed to be moved and/or reassessed but required this reference code for movement within the decision making database. | ||||
DECISION ID |
125524 |
Region 5 |
Elk Bayou (Tulare County) |
||
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)(2018) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. LOE 78760 and LOE 63396 have been replaced by LOE 214930 due to a reassessment of data using a U.S. EPA aquatic life benchmark |
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: | 214930 | ||||
Pollutant: | Cyhalothrin, Lambda | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
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 Elk Bayou (Tulare County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Cyhalothrin, lambda. Three 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. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins; Fifth Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The chronic concentration goal for Lambda-cyhalothrin is 0.3 ng/L (expressed as a 4-day average). If the freely dissolved concentrations of Lambda-cyhalothrin were reported or could be calculated then these values were used for this assessment. In the absence of freely dissolved concentrations, total concentrations were used. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Water Quality Criteria Report for Lambda-cyhalothrin | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Amendment to the Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento River and San Joaquin River Basins for the Control of Pyrethroid Pesticide Discharges | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Elk Bayou (Tulare County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [Elk Bayou - 558ELKSP5, Elk Bayou at Road 96 (SSJWQC)] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/13/2008-7/15/2009. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Data for this line of evidence was collected as part of the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | This is a placeholder for previously assessed data that does not have quality assurance information but would require it under newly developed policies. These LOEs were previously assessed and approved at the Regional, State and Federal level in past cycles. The LOEs needed to be moved and/or reassessed but required this reference code for movement within the decision making database. | ||||
DECISION ID |
125522 |
Region 5 |
Elk Bayou (Tulare County) |
||
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)(2018) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Previously considered water quality data was reevaluated according to new guidelines as part of this assessment. Line of evidence #63397 was replaced by #214931. Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. |
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: | 78783 | ||||
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 Elk Bayou (Tulare County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for cypermethrin. The two 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 one monitoring site [Elk Bayou - 558ELKSP5]. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected from 4/21/2009 to 10/14/2009. | ||||
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: | 214931 | ||||
Pollutant: | Cypermethrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
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 Elk Bayou (Tulare County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Cypermethrin, total. Three 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. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins; Fifth Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The chronic concentration goal for Cypermethrin is 0.3 ng/L (expressed as a 4-day average). If the freely dissolved concentrations of Cypermethrin were reported or could be calculated then these values were used for this assessment. In the absence of freely dissolved concentrations, total concentrations were used. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Water Quality Criteria Report for Cypermethrin | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Amendment to the Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento River and San Joaquin River Basins for the Control of Pyrethroid Pesticide Discharges | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Elk Bayou (Tulare County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [Elk Bayou - 558ELKSP5, Elk Bayou at Road 96 (SSJWQC)] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/13/2008-7/15/2009. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Data for this line of evidence was collected as part of the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | This is a placeholder for previously assessed data that does not have quality assurance information but would require it under newly developed policies. These LOEs were previously assessed and approved at the Regional, State and Federal level in past cycles. The LOEs needed to be moved and/or reassessed but required this reference code for movement within the decision making database. | ||||
DECISION ID |
128758 |
Region 5 |
Elk Bayou (Tulare County) |
||
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)(2018) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. LOE 79246 has been replaced by LOE 222902 and LOE 222879 due to a reassessment of data using a U.S. EPA aquatic life benchmark. |
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: | 222879 | ||||
Pollutant: | Dacthal | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
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: | Water Board staff assessed ILRP_SSJWQC data for Elk Bayou (Tulare County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold 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: | 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. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin Third Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Dacthal is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of >1100 ug/L for a nonvascular plant (acute) and vascular plant (acute). The benchmark was derived from a \greater-than\" value (for example, > 265,000) and may overestimate toxicity." | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (558EBAR96) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2009-07-15 and 2009-07-15 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Data was previously assessed without a QAPP. Data reassessed without a QAPP for consistency. Data for this line of evidence was collected as part of the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | This is a placeholder for previously assessed data that does not have quality assurance information but would require it under newly developed policies. These LOEs were previously assessed and approved at the Regional, State and Federal level in past cycles. The LOEs needed to be moved and/or reassessed but required this reference code for movement within the decision making database. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 222902 | ||||
Pollutant: | Dacthal | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed ILRP_SSJWQC data for Elk Bayou (Tulare County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceeded the water quality threshold 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: | 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. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin Third Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Dacthal is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of >1100 ug/L for a nonvascular plant (acute) and vascular plant (acute). The benchmark was derived from a \greater-than\" value (for example, > 265,000) and may overestimate toxicity." | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (558ELKSP5) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2008-02-13 and 2009-07-21 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Data was previously assessed without a QAPP. Data reassessed without a QAPP for consistency. Data for this line of evidence was collected as part of the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | This is a placeholder for previously assessed data that does not have quality assurance information but would require it under newly developed policies. These LOEs were previously assessed and approved at the Regional, State and Federal level in past cycles. The LOEs needed to be moved and/or reassessed but required this reference code for movement within the decision making database. | ||||
DECISION ID |
128777 |
Region 5 |
Elk Bayou (Tulare County) |
||
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)(2018) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Previously considered water quality data was reevaluated according to new guidelines as part of this assessment. Line of evidence #63398 was replaced by #222620 and #222944. Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. |
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: | 222620 | ||||
Pollutant: | Deltamethrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
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: | Water Board staff assessed ILRP_SSJWQC data for Elk Bayou (Tulare County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold 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: | 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. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin Third Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Deltamethrin is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 0.0041 ug/L for a invertebrate (acute). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (558ELKSP5) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2009-06-17 and 2009-06-17 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Data was previously assessed without a QAPP. Data reassessed without a QAPP for consistency. Data for this line of evidence was collected as part of the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | This is a placeholder for previously assessed data that does not have quality assurance information but would require it under newly developed policies. These LOEs were previously assessed and approved at the Regional, State and Federal level in past cycles. The LOEs needed to be moved and/or reassessed but required this reference code for movement within the decision making database. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 222944 | ||||
Pollutant: | Deltamethrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
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: | Water Board staff assessed ILRP_SSJWQC data for Elk Bayou (Tulare County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold 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: | 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. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin Third Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Deltamethrin is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 0.0041 ug/L for a invertebrate (acute). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (558EBAR96) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2009-07-15 and 2009-07-15 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Data was previously assessed without a QAPP. Data reassessed without a QAPP for consistency. Data for this line of evidence was collected as part of the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | This is a placeholder for previously assessed data that does not have quality assurance information but would require it under newly developed policies. These LOEs were previously assessed and approved at the Regional, State and Federal level in past cycles. The LOEs needed to be moved and/or reassessed but required this reference code for movement within the decision making database. | ||||
DECISION ID |
128759 |
Region 5 |
Elk Bayou (Tulare County) |
||
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)(2018) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. LOE 79255 has been replaced by LOE 222627 and LOE 222654 due to a reassessment of data using a U.S. EPA aquatic life benchmark. |
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: | 222654 | ||||
Pollutant: | Dichlorvos | ||||
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: | Water Board staff assessed ILRP_SSJWQC data for Elk Bayou (Tulare County) to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Dichlorvos. Although a total of 3 samples were collected, 3 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the water quality threshold and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. | ||||
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. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin Third Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Dichlorvos is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 0.0058 ug/L for a invertebrate (acute). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (558ELKSP5). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Date for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2009-02-22 to 2009-07-21 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Data was previously assessed without a QAPP. Data reassessed without a QAPP for consistency. Data for this line of evidence was collected as part of the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | This is a placeholder for previously assessed data that does not have quality assurance information but would require it under newly developed policies. These LOEs were previously assessed and approved at the Regional, State and Federal level in past cycles. The LOEs needed to be moved and/or reassessed but required this reference code for movement within the decision making database. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 222627 | ||||
Pollutant: | Dichlorvos | ||||
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: | Water Board staff assessed ILRP_SSJWQC data for Elk Bayou (Tulare County) to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Dichlorvos. Although a total of 1 samples were collected, 1 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the water quality threshold and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. | ||||
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. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin Third Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Dichlorvos is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 0.0058 ug/L for a invertebrate (acute). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (558EBAR96). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Date for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2009-07-15 to 2009-07-15 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Data was previously assessed without a QAPP. Data reassessed without a QAPP for consistency. Data for this line of evidence was collected as part of the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | This is a placeholder for previously assessed data that does not have quality assurance information but would require it under newly developed policies. These LOEs were previously assessed and approved at the Regional, State and Federal level in past cycles. The LOEs needed to be moved and/or reassessed but required this reference code for movement within the decision making database. | ||||
DECISION ID |
128760 |
Region 5 |
Elk Bayou (Tulare County) |
||
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)(2018) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. LOE 63400 has been replaced by LOE 222718 LOE 222697 due to a reassessment of data using a U.S. EPA aquatic life benchmark. |
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: | 222718 | ||||
Pollutant: | Dicofol | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
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: | Water Board staff assessed ILRP_SSJWQC data for Elk Bayou (Tulare County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold 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: | 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. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin Third Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Dicofol is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 4.4 ug/L for a fish (chronic). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (558EBAR96) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2009-07-15 and 2009-07-15 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Data was previously assessed without a QAPP. Data reassessed without a QAPP for consistency. Data for this line of evidence was collected as part of the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | This is a placeholder for previously assessed data that does not have quality assurance information but would require it under newly developed policies. These LOEs were previously assessed and approved at the Regional, State and Federal level in past cycles. The LOEs needed to be moved and/or reassessed but required this reference code for movement within the decision making database. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 222697 | ||||
Pollutant: | Dicofol | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed ILRP_SSJWQC data for Elk Bayou (Tulare County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceeded the water quality threshold 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: | 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. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin Third Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Dicofol is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 4.4 ug/L for a fish (chronic). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (558ELKSP5) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2006-07-19 and 2009-07-21 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Data was previously assessed without a QAPP. Data reassessed without a QAPP for consistency. Data for this line of evidence was collected as part of the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | This is a placeholder for previously assessed data that does not have quality assurance information but would require it under newly developed policies. These LOEs were previously assessed and approved at the Regional, State and Federal level in past cycles. The LOEs needed to be moved and/or reassessed but required this reference code for movement within the decision making database. | ||||
DECISION ID |
128778 |
Region 5 |
Elk Bayou (Tulare County) |
||
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)(2018) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. LOE 63407 has been replaced by LOEs 222644 and 222660 due to a reassessment of data using a U.S. EPA aquatic life benchmark. |
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: | 222660 | ||||
Pollutant: | Fenpropathrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
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: | Water Board staff assessed ILRP_SSJWQC data for Elk Bayou (Tulare County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold 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: | 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. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin Third Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Fenpropathrin is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 0.06 ug/L for a fish (chronic). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (558ELKSP5) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2009-06-17 and 2009-06-17 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Data was previously assessed without a QAPP. Data reassessed without a QAPP for consistency. Data for this line of evidence was collected as part of the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | This is a placeholder for previously assessed data that does not have quality assurance information but would require it under newly developed policies. These LOEs were previously assessed and approved at the Regional, State and Federal level in past cycles. The LOEs needed to be moved and/or reassessed but required this reference code for movement within the decision making database. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 222644 | ||||
Pollutant: | Fenpropathrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
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: | Water Board staff assessed ILRP_SSJWQC data for Elk Bayou (Tulare County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold 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: | 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. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin Third Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Fenpropathrin is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 0.06 ug/L for a fish (chronic). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (558EBAR96) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2009-07-15 and 2009-07-15 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Data was previously assessed without a QAPP. Data reassessed without a QAPP for consistency. Data for this line of evidence was collected as part of the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | This is a placeholder for previously assessed data that does not have quality assurance information but would require it under newly developed policies. These LOEs were previously assessed and approved at the Regional, State and Federal level in past cycles. The LOEs needed to be moved and/or reassessed but required this reference code for movement within the decision making database. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 78815 | ||||
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 Elk Bayou (Tulare County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for fenpropathrin. The two 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 one monitoring site [Elk Bayou - 558ELKSP5]. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected from 4/21/2009 to 10/14/2009. | ||||
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 |
128761 |
Region 5 |
Elk Bayou (Tulare County) |
||
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)(2018) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. LOE 63408 has been replaced by LOEs 222707 and 222710 due to a reassessment of data using a U.S. EPA aquatic life benchmark. |
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: | 222710 | ||||
Pollutant: | Glyphosate | ||||
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: | Water Board staff assessed ILRP_SSJWQC data for Elk Bayou (Tulare County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceeded the water quality threshold 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: | 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. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin Third Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Glyphosate is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 11900 ug/L for a vascular plant (acute). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (558EBAR96) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2009-07-15 and 2009-07-15 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Data was previously assessed without a QAPP. Data reassessed without a QAPP for consistency. Data for this line of evidence was collected as part of the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | This is a placeholder for previously assessed data that does not have quality assurance information but would require it under newly developed policies. These LOEs were previously assessed and approved at the Regional, State and Federal level in past cycles. The LOEs needed to be moved and/or reassessed but required this reference code for movement within the decision making database. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 222707 | ||||
Pollutant: | Glyphosate | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
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: | Water Board staff assessed ILRP_SSJWQC data for Elk Bayou (Tulare County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold 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: | 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. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin Third Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Glyphosate is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 11900 ug/L for a vascular plant (acute). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (558ELKSP5) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2006-07-19 and 2009-07-21 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Data was previously assessed without a QAPP. Data reassessed without a QAPP for consistency. Data for this line of evidence was collected as part of the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | This is a placeholder for previously assessed data that does not have quality assurance information but would require it under newly developed policies. These LOEs were previously assessed and approved at the Regional, State and Federal level in past cycles. The LOEs needed to be moved and/or reassessed but required this reference code for movement within the decision making database. | ||||
DECISION ID |
128762 |
Region 5 |
Elk Bayou (Tulare County) |
||
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)(2018) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. LOE 63413 has been replaced by LOE 222821 and LOE 222820 due to a reassessment of data using a U.S. EPA aquatic life benchmark. |
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: | 222820 | ||||
Pollutant: | Linuron | ||||
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: | Water Board staff assessed ILRP_SSJWQC data for Elk Bayou (Tulare County) to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Linuron. Although a total of 1 samples were collected, 1 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the water quality threshold and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. | ||||
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. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin Third Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Linuron is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 0.09 ug/L for a invertebrate (acute). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (558EBAR96). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Date for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2009-07-15 to 2009-07-15 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Data was previously assessed without a QAPP. Data reassessed without a QAPP for consistency. Data for this line of evidence was collected as part of the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | This is a placeholder for previously assessed data that does not have quality assurance information but would require it under newly developed policies. These LOEs were previously assessed and approved at the Regional, State and Federal level in past cycles. The LOEs needed to be moved and/or reassessed but required this reference code for movement within the decision making database. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 222821 | ||||
Pollutant: | Linuron | ||||
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: | Water Board staff assessed ILRP_SSJWQC data for Elk Bayou (Tulare County) to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Linuron. Although a total of 5 samples were collected, 5 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the water quality threshold and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. | ||||
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. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin Third Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Linuron is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 0.09 ug/L for a invertebrate (acute). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (558ELKSP5). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Date for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2006-07-19 to 2009-07-21 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Data was previously assessed without a QAPP. Data reassessed without a QAPP for consistency. Data for this line of evidence was collected as part of the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | This is a placeholder for previously assessed data that does not have quality assurance information but would require it under newly developed policies. These LOEs were previously assessed and approved at the Regional, State and Federal level in past cycles. The LOEs needed to be moved and/or reassessed but required this reference code for movement within the decision making database. | ||||
DECISION ID |
128768 |
Region 5 |
Elk Bayou (Tulare County) |
||
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)(2018) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. LOE 63415 has been replaced by LOE 222926 and LOE 222649 due to a reassessment of data using a U.S. EPA aquatic life benchmark. |
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: | 222926 | ||||
Pollutant: | Methidathion | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
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: | Water Board staff assessed ILRP_SSJWQC data for Elk Bayou (Tulare County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold 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: | 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. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin Third Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Methidathion is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 0.66 ug/L for a invertebrate (acute). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (558EBAR96) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2009-07-15 and 2009-07-15 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Data was previously assessed without a QAPP. Data reassessed without a QAPP for consistency. Data for this line of evidence was collected as part of the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | This is a placeholder for previously assessed data that does not have quality assurance information but would require it under newly developed policies. These LOEs were previously assessed and approved at the Regional, State and Federal level in past cycles. The LOEs needed to be moved and/or reassessed but required this reference code for movement within the decision making database. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 222649 | ||||
Pollutant: | Methidathion | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed ILRP_SSJWQC data for Elk Bayou (Tulare County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 5 samples exceeded the water quality threshold 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: | 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. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin Third Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Methidathion is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 0.66 ug/L for a invertebrate (acute). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (558ELKSP5) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2006-07-19 and 2009-07-21 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Data was previously assessed without a QAPP. Data reassessed without a QAPP for consistency. Data for this line of evidence was collected as part of the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | This is a placeholder for previously assessed data that does not have quality assurance information but would require it under newly developed policies. These LOEs were previously assessed and approved at the Regional, State and Federal level in past cycles. The LOEs needed to be moved and/or reassessed but required this reference code for movement within the decision making database. | ||||
DECISION ID |
128767 |
Region 5 |
Elk Bayou (Tulare County) |
||
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)(2018) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. LOE 63416 has been replaced by LOEs 222739 and 222759 due to a reassessment of data using a U.S. EPA aquatic life benchmark. |
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: | 222739 | ||||
Pollutant: | Methiocarb | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed ILRP_SSJWQC data for Elk Bayou (Tulare County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 5 samples exceeded the water quality threshold 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: | 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. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin Third Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Methiocarb is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 2.75 ug/L for a invertebrate (chronic). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (558ELKSP5) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2006-07-19 and 2009-07-21 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Data was previously assessed without a QAPP. Data reassessed without a QAPP for consistency. Data for this line of evidence was collected as part of the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | This is a placeholder for previously assessed data that does not have quality assurance information but would require it under newly developed policies. These LOEs were previously assessed and approved at the Regional, State and Federal level in past cycles. The LOEs needed to be moved and/or reassessed but required this reference code for movement within the decision making database. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 222759 | ||||
Pollutant: | Methiocarb | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
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: | Water Board staff assessed ILRP_SSJWQC data for Elk Bayou (Tulare County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold 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: | 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. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin Third Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Methiocarb is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 2.75 ug/L for a invertebrate (chronic). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (558EBAR96) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2009-07-15 and 2009-07-15 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Data was previously assessed without a QAPP. Data reassessed without a QAPP for consistency. Data for this line of evidence was collected as part of the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | This is a placeholder for previously assessed data that does not have quality assurance information but would require it under newly developed policies. These LOEs were previously assessed and approved at the Regional, State and Federal level in past cycles. The LOEs needed to be moved and/or reassessed but required this reference code for movement within the decision making database. | ||||
DECISION ID |
128771 |
Region 5 |
Elk Bayou (Tulare County) |
||
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)(2018) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. LOE 63420 has been replaced by LOE 222784 and LOE 222806 due to a reassessment of data using a U.S. EPA aquatic life benchmark. |
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: | 222784 | ||||
Pollutant: | Metolachlor | ||||
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: | Water Board staff assessed ILRP_SSJWQC data for Elk Bayou (Tulare County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceeded the water quality threshold 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: | 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. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin Third Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Metolachlor is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 1 ug/L for a invertebrate (acute). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (558EBAR96) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2009-07-15 and 2009-07-15 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Data was previously assessed without a QAPP. Data reassessed without a QAPP for consistency. Data for this line of evidence was collected as part of the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | This is a placeholder for previously assessed data that does not have quality assurance information but would require it under newly developed policies. These LOEs were previously assessed and approved at the Regional, State and Federal level in past cycles. The LOEs needed to be moved and/or reassessed but required this reference code for movement within the decision making database. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 222806 | ||||
Pollutant: | Metolachlor | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
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: | Water Board staff assessed ILRP_SSJWQC data for Elk Bayou (Tulare County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold 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: | 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. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin Third Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Metolachlor is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 1 ug/L for a invertebrate (acute). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (558ELKSP5) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2006-08-07 and 2009-07-21 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Data was previously assessed without a QAPP. Data reassessed without a QAPP for consistency. Data for this line of evidence was collected as part of the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | This is a placeholder for previously assessed data that does not have quality assurance information but would require it under newly developed policies. These LOEs were previously assessed and approved at the Regional, State and Federal level in past cycles. The LOEs needed to be moved and/or reassessed but required this reference code for movement within the decision making database. | ||||
DECISION ID |
128772 |
Region 5 |
Elk Bayou (Tulare County) |
||
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)(2018) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. LOE 63421 has been replaced by LOE 222867 and LOE 222850 due to a reassessment of data using a U.S. EPA aquatic life benchmark. |
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: | 222850 | ||||
Pollutant: | Metribuzin | ||||
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: | Water Board staff assessed ILRP_SSJWQC data for Elk Bayou (Tulare County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceeded the water quality threshold 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: | 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. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin Third Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Metribuzin is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 8.1 ug/L for a nonvascular plant (acute). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (558EBAR96) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2009-07-15 and 2009-07-15 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Data was previously assessed without a QAPP. Data reassessed without a QAPP for consistency. Data for this line of evidence was collected as part of the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | This is a placeholder for previously assessed data that does not have quality assurance information but would require it under newly developed policies. These LOEs were previously assessed and approved at the Regional, State and Federal level in past cycles. The LOEs needed to be moved and/or reassessed but required this reference code for movement within the decision making database. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 222867 | ||||
Pollutant: | Metribuzin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
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: | Water Board staff assessed ILRP_SSJWQC data for Elk Bayou (Tulare County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold 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: | 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. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin Third Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Metribuzin is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 8.1 ug/L for a nonvascular plant (acute). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (558ELKSP5) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2006-08-07 and 2009-07-21 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Data was previously assessed without a QAPP. Data reassessed without a QAPP for consistency. Data for this line of evidence was collected as part of the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | This is a placeholder for previously assessed data that does not have quality assurance information but would require it under newly developed policies. These LOEs were previously assessed and approved at the Regional, State and Federal level in past cycles. The LOEs needed to be moved and/or reassessed but required this reference code for movement within the decision making database. | ||||
DECISION ID |
128763 |
Region 5 |
Elk Bayou (Tulare County) |
||
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)(2018) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. LOE 63422 has been replaced by LOE 222868 and 222933 due to a reassessment of data using a U.S. EPA aquatic life benchmark. |
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: | 222868 | ||||
Pollutant: | Molinate | ||||
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: | Water Board staff assessed ILRP_SSJWQC data for Elk Bayou (Tulare County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceeded the water quality threshold 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: | 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. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin Third Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The California Department of Fish and Wildlife hazard assessment instantaneous criterion (1-hour average) for the protection of aquatic life for Molinate is 13 ug/L. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Hazard Assessment of the Rice Herbicides Molinate and Thiobencarb to Aquatic Organisms in the Sacramento River System. Administrative Report 90-1. California Department of Fish and Game, Environmental Services Division | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (558EBAR96) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2009-07-15 and 2009-07-15 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Data was previously assessed without a QAPP. Data reassessed without a QAPP for consistency. Data for this line of evidence was collected as part of the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | This is a placeholder for previously assessed data that does not have quality assurance information but would require it under newly developed policies. These LOEs were previously assessed and approved at the Regional, State and Federal level in past cycles. The LOEs needed to be moved and/or reassessed but required this reference code for movement within the decision making database. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 222933 | ||||
Pollutant: | Molinate | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
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: | Water Board staff assessed ILRP_SSJWQC data for Elk Bayou (Tulare County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold 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: | 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. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin Third Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The California Department of Fish and Wildlife hazard assessment instantaneous criterion (1-hour average) for the protection of aquatic life for Molinate is 13 ug/L. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Hazard Assessment of the Rice Herbicides Molinate and Thiobencarb to Aquatic Organisms in the Sacramento River System. Administrative Report 90-1. California Department of Fish and Game, Environmental Services Division | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (558ELKSP5) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2006-08-07 and 2009-07-21 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Data was previously assessed without a QAPP. Data reassessed without a QAPP for consistency. Data for this line of evidence was collected as part of the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | This is a placeholder for previously assessed data that does not have quality assurance information but would require it under newly developed policies. These LOEs were previously assessed and approved at the Regional, State and Federal level in past cycles. The LOEs needed to be moved and/or reassessed but required this reference code for movement within the decision making database. | ||||
DECISION ID |
128779 |
Region 5 |
Elk Bayou (Tulare County) |
||
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)(2018) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Previously considered water quality data was reevaluated according to new guidelines as part of this assessment. Line of evidence #79340 was replaced by #222631 and #223054. Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. |
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: | 223054 | ||||
Pollutant: | Paraquat | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
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_SSJWQC data for Elk Bayou (Tulare County) to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Paraquat. Although a total of 4 samples were collected, 4 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the water quality threshold and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. | ||||
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. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin Third Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Paraquat is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 0.396 ug/L for a nonvascular plant (acute) for Paraquat dichloride. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (558ELKSP5). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Date for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2006-07-19 to 2009-07-21 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Data was previously assessed without a QAPP. Data reassessed without a QAPP for consistency. Data for this line of evidence was collected as part of the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | This is a placeholder for previously assessed data that does not have quality assurance information but would require it under newly developed policies. These LOEs were previously assessed and approved at the Regional, State and Federal level in past cycles. The LOEs needed to be moved and/or reassessed but required this reference code for movement within the decision making database. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 222631 | ||||
Pollutant: | Paraquat | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
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_SSJWQC data for Elk Bayou (Tulare County) to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Paraquat. Although a total of 1 samples were collected, 1 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the water quality threshold and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. | ||||
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. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin Third Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Paraquat is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 0.396 ug/L for a nonvascular plant (acute) for Paraquat dichloride. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (558EBAR96). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Date for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2009-07-15 to 2009-07-15 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Data was previously assessed without a QAPP. Data reassessed without a QAPP for consistency. Data for this line of evidence was collected as part of the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | This is a placeholder for previously assessed data that does not have quality assurance information but would require it under newly developed policies. These LOEs were previously assessed and approved at the Regional, State and Federal level in past cycles. The LOEs needed to be moved and/or reassessed but required this reference code for movement within the decision making database. | ||||
DECISION ID |
130394 |
Region 5 |
Elk Bayou (Tulare County) |
||
Pollutant: | Permethrin |
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)(2018) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Previously assessed data was re-evaluated according to new guidelines. Line of evidence #63426 was replaced by #214932. Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. |
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: | 214932 | ||||
Pollutant: | Permethrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
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 Elk Bayou (Tulare County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Permethrin, Total. Three 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. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins; Fifth Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The chronic concentration goal for Permethrin is 1 ng/L (expressed as a 4-day average). If the freely dissolved concentrations of Permethrin were reported or could be calculated then these values were used for this assessment. In the absence of freely dissolved concentrations, total concentrations were used. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Water Quality Criteria Report for Permethrin | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Amendment to the Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento River and San Joaquin River Basins for the Control of Pyrethroid Pesticide Discharges | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Elk Bayou (Tulare County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [Elk Bayou - 558ELKSP5, Elk Bayou at Road 96 (SSJWQC)] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/13/2008-7/15/2009. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Data for this line of evidence was collected as part of the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | This is a placeholder for previously assessed data that does not have quality assurance information but would require it under newly developed policies. These LOEs were previously assessed and approved at the Regional, State and Federal level in past cycles. The LOEs needed to be moved and/or reassessed but required this reference code for movement within the decision making database. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 78914 | ||||
Pollutant: | Permethrin | ||||
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 Elk Bayou (Tulare County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for permethrin, total. The two 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 one monitoring site [Elk Bayou - 558ELKSP5]. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected from 4/21/2009 to 10/14/2009. | ||||
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 |
128773 |
Region 5 |
Elk Bayou (Tulare County) |
||
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)(2018) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. LOE 63427 has been replaced by LOEs 222987 and 222995 due to a reassessment of data using a U.S. EPA aquatic life benchmark. |
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: | 222987 | ||||
Pollutant: | Phorate | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed ILRP_SSJWQC data for Elk Bayou (Tulare County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 5 samples exceeded the water quality threshold 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: | 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. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin Third Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Phorate is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 0.21 ug/L for a invertebrate (acute). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (558ELKSP5) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2006-07-19 and 2009-07-21 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Data was previously assessed without a QAPP. Data reassessed without a QAPP for consistency. Data for this line of evidence was collected as part of the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | This is a placeholder for previously assessed data that does not have quality assurance information but would require it under newly developed policies. These LOEs were previously assessed and approved at the Regional, State and Federal level in past cycles. The LOEs needed to be moved and/or reassessed but required this reference code for movement within the decision making database. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 222995 | ||||
Pollutant: | Phorate | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
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: | Water Board staff assessed ILRP_SSJWQC data for Elk Bayou (Tulare County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold 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: | 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. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin Third Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Phorate is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 0.21 ug/L for a invertebrate (acute). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (558EBAR96) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2009-07-15 and 2009-07-15 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Data was previously assessed without a QAPP. Data reassessed without a QAPP for consistency. Data for this line of evidence was collected as part of the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | This is a placeholder for previously assessed data that does not have quality assurance information but would require it under newly developed policies. These LOEs were previously assessed and approved at the Regional, State and Federal level in past cycles. The LOEs needed to be moved and/or reassessed but required this reference code for movement within the decision making database. | ||||
DECISION ID |
128776 |
Region 5 |
Elk Bayou (Tulare County) |
||
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)(2018) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. LOE 63428 has been replaced by LOEs 223034 and 223033 due to a reassessment of data using a U.S. EPA aquatic life benchmark |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 223033 | ||||
Pollutant: | Phosmet | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed ILRP_SSJWQC data for Elk Bayou (Tulare County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 5 samples exceeded the water quality threshold 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: | 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. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin Third Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Phosmet is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 0.8 ug/L for a invertebrate (acute). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (558ELKSP5) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2006-07-19 and 2009-07-21 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Data was previously assessed without a QAPP. Data reassessed without a QAPP for consistency. Data for this line of evidence was collected as part of the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | This is a placeholder for previously assessed data that does not have quality assurance information but would require it under newly developed policies. These LOEs were previously assessed and approved at the Regional, State and Federal level in past cycles. The LOEs needed to be moved and/or reassessed but required this reference code for movement within the decision making database. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 223034 | ||||
Pollutant: | Phosmet | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
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: | Water Board staff assessed ILRP_SSJWQC data for Elk Bayou (Tulare County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold 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: | 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. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin Third Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Phosmet is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 0.8 ug/L for a invertebrate (acute). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (558EBAR96) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2009-07-15 and 2009-07-15 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Data was previously assessed without a QAPP. Data reassessed without a QAPP for consistency. Data for this line of evidence was collected as part of the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | This is a placeholder for previously assessed data that does not have quality assurance information but would require it under newly developed policies. These LOEs were previously assessed and approved at the Regional, State and Federal level in past cycles. The LOEs needed to be moved and/or reassessed but required this reference code for movement within the decision making database. | ||||
DECISION ID |
128769 |
Region 5 |
Elk Bayou (Tulare County) |
||
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)(2018) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. LOE 63429 has been replaced by LOE 223046 and LOE 223043 due to a reassessment of data using a U.S. EPA aquatic life benchmark. |
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 the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 223043 | ||||
Pollutant: | Prometryn | ||||
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: | Water Board staff assessed ILRP_SSJWQC data for Elk Bayou (Tulare County) to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Prometryn. Although a total of 1 samples were collected, 1 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the water quality threshold and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. | ||||
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. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin Third Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Prometryn is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 1.04 ug/L for a nonvascular plant (acute). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (558EBAR96). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Date for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2009-07-15 to 2009-07-15 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Data was previously assessed without a QAPP. Data reassessed without a QAPP for consistency. Data for this line of evidence was collected as part of the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | This is a placeholder for previously assessed data that does not have quality assurance information but would require it under newly developed policies. These LOEs were previously assessed and approved at the Regional, State and Federal level in past cycles. The LOEs needed to be moved and/or reassessed but required this reference code for movement within the decision making database. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 223046 | ||||
Pollutant: | Prometryn | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
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: | Water Board staff assessed ILRP_SSJWQC data for Elk Bayou (Tulare County) to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Prometryn. Although a total of 4 samples were collected, 3 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the water quality threshold and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. | ||||
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. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin Third Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Prometryn is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 1.04 ug/L for a nonvascular plant (acute). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (558ELKSP5). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2006-08-07 to 2009-07-21 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Data was previously assessed without a QAPP. Data reassessed without a QAPP for consistency. Data for this line of evidence was collected as part of the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | This is a placeholder for previously assessed data that does not have quality assurance information but would require it under newly developed policies. These LOEs were previously assessed and approved at the Regional, State and Federal level in past cycles. The LOEs needed to be moved and/or reassessed but required this reference code for movement within the decision making database. | ||||
DECISION ID |
128764 |
Region 5 |
Elk Bayou (Tulare County) |
||
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)(2018) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. LOE 63432 has been replaced by LOE 223079 and LOE 223085 due to a reassessment of data using a U.S. EPA aquatic life benchmark. |
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: | 223085 | ||||
Pollutant: | Simazine | ||||
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: | Water Board staff assessed ILRP_SSJWQC data for Elk Bayou (Tulare County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceeded the water quality threshold 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: | 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. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin Third Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Simazine is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 6 ug/L for a nonvascular plant (acute). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (558EBAR96) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2009-07-15 and 2009-07-15 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Data was previously assessed without a QAPP. Data reassessed without a QAPP for consistency. Data for this line of evidence was collected as part of the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | This is a placeholder for previously assessed data that does not have quality assurance information but would require it under newly developed policies. These LOEs were previously assessed and approved at the Regional, State and Federal level in past cycles. The LOEs needed to be moved and/or reassessed but required this reference code for movement within the decision making database. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 223079 | ||||
Pollutant: | Simazine | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
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: | Water Board staff assessed ILRP_SSJWQC data for Elk Bayou (Tulare County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold 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: | 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. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin Third Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Simazine is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 6 ug/L for a nonvascular plant (acute). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (558ELKSP5) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2006-08-07 and 2009-07-21 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Data was previously assessed without a QAPP. Data reassessed without a QAPP for consistency. Data for this line of evidence was collected as part of the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | This is a placeholder for previously assessed data that does not have quality assurance information but would require it under newly developed policies. These LOEs were previously assessed and approved at the Regional, State and Federal level in past cycles. The LOEs needed to be moved and/or reassessed but required this reference code for movement within the decision making database. | ||||
DECISION ID |
128780 |
Region 5 |
Elk Bayou (Tulare County) |
||
Pollutant: | Thiobencarb |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. |
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 the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 222970 | ||||
Pollutant: | Thiobencarb | ||||
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: | Water Board staff assessed ILRP_SSJWQC data for Elk Bayou (Tulare County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceeded the water quality threshold 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: | 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. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin Third Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Thiobencarb is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 1 ug/L for a invertebrate (acute). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (558ELKSP5) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2008-02-13 and 2009-07-21 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Data was previously assessed without a QAPP. Data reassessed without a QAPP for consistency. Data for this line of evidence was collected as part of the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | This is a placeholder for previously assessed data that does not have quality assurance information but would require it under newly developed policies. These LOEs were previously assessed and approved at the Regional, State and Federal level in past cycles. The LOEs needed to be moved and/or reassessed but required this reference code for movement within the decision making database. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 222989 | ||||
Pollutant: | Thiobencarb | ||||
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: | Water Board staff assessed ILRP_SSJWQC data for Elk Bayou (Tulare County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceeded the water quality threshold 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: | 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. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin Third Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Thiobencarb is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 1 ug/L for a invertebrate (acute). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (558EBAR96) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2009-07-15 and 2009-07-15 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Data was previously assessed without a QAPP. Data reassessed without a QAPP for consistency. Data for this line of evidence was collected as part of the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | This is a placeholder for previously assessed data that does not have quality assurance information but would require it under newly developed policies. These LOEs were previously assessed and approved at the Regional, State and Federal level in past cycles. The LOEs needed to be moved and/or reassessed but required this reference code for movement within the decision making database. | ||||
DECISION ID |
128765 |
Region 5 |
Elk Bayou (Tulare County) |
||
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)(2018) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. LOE 63438 has been replaced by LOE 223014 and LOE 223023 due to a reassessment of data using a U.S. EPA aquatic life benchmark. |
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: | 223014 | ||||
Pollutant: | Trifluralin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 3 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed ILRP_SSJWQC data for Elk Bayou (Tulare County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 3 samples exceeded the water quality threshold 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: | 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. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin Third Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Trifluralin is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 1.9 ug/L for a fish (chronic). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (558ELKSP5) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2009-02-22 and 2009-07-21 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Data was previously assessed without a QAPP. Data reassessed without a QAPP for consistency. Data for this line of evidence was collected as part of the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | This is a placeholder for previously assessed data that does not have quality assurance information but would require it under newly developed policies. These LOEs were previously assessed and approved at the Regional, State and Federal level in past cycles. The LOEs needed to be moved and/or reassessed but required this reference code for movement within the decision making database. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 223023 | ||||
Pollutant: | Trifluralin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
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: | Water Board staff assessed ILRP_SSJWQC data for Elk Bayou (Tulare County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold 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: | 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. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin Third Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Trifluralin is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 1.9 ug/L for a fish (chronic). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (558EBAR96) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2009-07-15 and 2009-07-15 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Data was previously assessed without a QAPP. Data reassessed without a QAPP for consistency. Data for this line of evidence was collected as part of the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | This is a placeholder for previously assessed data that does not have quality assurance information but would require it under newly developed policies. These LOEs were previously assessed and approved at the Regional, State and Federal level in past cycles. The LOEs needed to be moved and/or reassessed but required this reference code for movement within the decision making database. | ||||
DECISION ID |
73441 |
Region 5 |
Elk Bayou (Tulare County) |
||
Pollutant: | Chlorpyrifos |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not Delist from 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 removal from the CWA section 303(d) List under section 4.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess pollutant. Five of 11 samples exceed the evaluation guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from 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. Five of 11 samples exceed the evaluation guideline and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are 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 removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are 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: | 63392 | ||||
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 Elk Bayou (Tulare County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: One of six 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 Elk Bayou (Tulare County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [Elk Bayou - 558ELKSP5; Elk Bayou at Road 96 - 558EBAR96] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected between 7/19/2006 and 7/21/2009. | ||||
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: | 78657 | ||||
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 Elk Bayou (Tulare County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for chlorpyrifos. The two 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 one monitoring site [Elk Bayou - 558ELKSP5]. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected from 4/21/2009 to 10/14/2009. | ||||
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: | 22075 | ||||
Pollutant: | Chlorpyrifos | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Aquatic Life Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 4 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Five water samples were collected from Elk Bayou from June to August 2005 and in July 2006, representing five calculated 4-day average chlorpyrifos concentrations and five 1-hour average chlorpyrifos concentrations. Four of the calculated 4-day average chlorpyrifos concentrations exceeded the 4-day average chlorpyrifos criterion of 0.015 ug/L. Three samples exceeded the 1-hour average chlorpyrifos criterion of 0.025 ug/L. | ||||
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: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations 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. | ||||
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 | ||||
Objective/Criterion 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 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | California Department of Fish and Game Hazard Assessment Chlorpyrifos Criteria: 0.015 ug/L as a 4-day average chlorpyrifos concentration, and 0.025 ug/L as a 1-hour average chlorpyrifos concentration, not to be exceeded more than once every three years. | ||||
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 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from Elk Bayou at Road 96. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Daily samples were collected between June and August 2005 and in July 2006 in variable intervals. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | 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 |
73862 |
Region 5 |
Elk Bayou (Tulare County) |
||
Pollutant: | Toxicity |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not Delist from 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 removal from the CWA section 303(d) List under section 4.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess pollutant. Eleven of 33 samples exceed the evaluation guideline for toxicity in water and zero of 3 samples exceed the evaluation guideline for toxicity in sediment. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from 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. Eleven of 33 samples exceed the evaluation guideline for toxicity in water and zero of 3 samples exceed the evaluation guideline for toxicity in sediment. This exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are 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 removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are 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: | 22081 | ||||
Pollutant: | Toxicity | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Toxicity | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Aquatic Life Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 9 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 2 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | TOXICITY TESTING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Two of 9 samples tested with Selenastrum capricornutum were toxic and violated the narrative toxicity objective. Two samples collected at Elk Bayou exhibited a statistically significant decrease in growth compared to the control. The sample dates and percent of control (in parentheses) are as follows:30 August 2005 (67)13 March 2006 (85) | ||||
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: | 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. (CVRWQCB, 2004) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin Second Edition. rev. Jan 2004 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | Statistically significant difference from control using a t-test with 4-day chronic-style toxicity tests. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Short-term Methods for Estimating the Chronic Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters to Freshwater and Marine Organisms, Fourth Edition. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water, Washington, DC EPA-821-R-02-013 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from three locations: Elk Bayou, Elk Bayou (SP-5), and Elk Bayou at Road 96. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected from June 2005 to July 2006. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | 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): | |||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 63437 | ||||
Pollutant: | Toxicity | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Toxicity | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 4 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | TOXICITY TESTING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Six samples were collected to evaluate water toxicity. Four of the samples exhibited significant toxicity to Pimephales promelas (3 samples) and Selenastrum capricornutum (1 sample). The toxicity tests included survival of Ceriodaphnia dubia and survival of Pimephales promelas. One sample can have multiple toxicity test results but will be counted only once. | ||||
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 Elk Bayou and Elk Bayou at Road 96 (SSJWQC). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected from July 2006 to July 2009. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Collected under the Management Plan for the South San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 63430 | ||||
Pollutant: | Toxicity | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Toxicity | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 3 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | TOXICITY TESTING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Three samples were collected to evaluate sediment toxicity. None 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: | 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 Elk Bayou. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected in October 2008 and October and April 2009. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Collected under the Management Plan for the South San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 22074 | ||||
Pollutant: | Toxicity | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Toxicity | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Aquatic Life Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 9 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 2 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | TOXICITY TESTING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Two of the 9 samples tested with Ceriodaphnia dubia were toxic and violated the narrative toxicity objective. One sample collected at Elk Bayou exhibited a statistically significant decrease in growth compared to the control. The sample date and percent of control (in parentheses) are as follows:24 July 2006 ()One sample collected at Elk Bayou at Road 96 exhibited a statistically significant decrease in growth compared to the control. The sample date and percent of control (in parentheses) are as follows:01 August 2005 (0) | ||||
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: | 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. (CVRWQCB, 2004) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin Second Edition. rev. Jan 2004 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | Statistically significant difference from control using a t-test with 4-day acute-style toxicity tests. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Methods for Measuring the Acute Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters to Freshwater and Marine Organisms, Fifth Edition. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water, Washington, DC EPA-821-R-02-012 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from three locations: Elk Bayou, Elk Bayou (SP-5), and Elk Bayou at Road 96. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected from June 2005 to July 2006. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | 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): | |||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 22077 | ||||
Pollutant: | Toxicity | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Toxicity | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Aquatic Life Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 9 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 3 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | TOXICITY TESTING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Three of the 9 samples tested with Pimephales promelas were toxic and violated the narrative toxicity objective. One sample collected at Elk Bayou exhibited a statistically significant decrease in growth compared to the control. The sample date and percent of control (in parentheses) are as follows:13 March 2006 ()One sample collected at Elk Bayou (SP-5) exhibited a statistically significant decrease in growth compared to the control. The sample date and percent of control (in parentheses) are as follows:19 July 2006 (47)One sample collected at Elk Bayou at Road 96 exhibited a statistically significant decrease in growth compared to the control. The sample date and percent of control (in parentheses) are as follows:21 June 2005 (92.5) | ||||
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: | 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. (CVRWQCB, 2004) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin Second Edition. rev. Jan 2004 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | Statistically significant difference from control using a t-test with 4-day acute-style toxicity tests. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Methods for Measuring the Acute Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters to Freshwater and Marine Organisms, Fifth Edition. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water, Washington, DC EPA-821-R-02-012 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from three locations: Elk Bayou, Elk Bayou (SP-5), and Elk Bayou at Road 96. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected from June 2005 to July 2006. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | 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 |
74284 |
Region 5 |
Elk Bayou (Tulare County) |
||
Pollutant: | pH |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not Delist from 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 removal from the CWA section 303(d) List under section 4.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess pollutant. Six of 22 samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from 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 22 samples exceed the water quality objective and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are 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 removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are 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: | 79366 | ||||
Pollutant: | pH | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Aquatic Life 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: | State Water Board staff assessed ILRP data for Elk Bayou (Tulare County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 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: | The pH of water shall not be depressed below 6.5,raised above 8.3, or changed at any time more than 0.3 units from normal ambient pH. Measurement of pH within the range of 6.5 and 8.3 | ||||
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 Elk Bayou (Tulare County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Elk Bayou - 558ELKSP5, Elk Bayou at Road 96 (SSJWQC)] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 7/19/2006-7/21/2009. | ||||
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: | 22078 | ||||
Pollutant: | pH | ||||
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: | 6 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | The Southern San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition collected 16 samples from February 2005 to July 2006. Six out of 16 samples were outside the acceptable range; all six samples were higher than the acceptable pH range. | ||||
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: | The pH of water shall not be depressed below 6.5,raised above 8.3, or changed at any time more than 0.3 units from normal ambient pH. Measurement of pH within the range of 6.5 and 8.3 | ||||
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 two locations: Elk Bayou and Elk Bayou at Road 96. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Sampling occurred from February 2005 to July 2006. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | 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 |
92301 |
Region 5 |
Elk Bayou (Tulare County) |
||
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 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 five 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 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 five samples exceed the 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 are needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 63459 | ||||
Pollutant: | Aldrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
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 Elk Bayou (Tulare County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 5 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 Elk Bayou (Tulare County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [Elk Bayou - 558ELKSP5, Elk Bayou at Road 96 (SSJWQC)] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/13/2008-7/21/2009. | ||||
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 |
93366 |
Region 5 |
Elk Bayou (Tulare County) |
||
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: | 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, one line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the six date-averaged water sample Ammonia as N values exceed the pH-dependent, calculated CMC evaluation guideline values for ammonia as N. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient 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. None of the six date-averaged water sample values exceed the calculated evaluation guideline values for ammonia as N, and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples are needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.1 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 this water body and 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: | 78427 | ||||
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: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Ten water samples collected on six dates from Elk Bayou (Tulare County) by the South San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition were analyzed for ammonia as N. The analytical results of duplicate samples (i.e., more than one sample collected from the same monitoring station and at the same date and time) were averaged before they were assessed. Therefore, there were six averaged sample values. pH measurements were determined for each of the samples analyzed for Ammonia as N.
None of the six date-averaged ammonia results exceeded the calculated CMC values for total ammonia nitrogen. |
||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Southern San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition, 2004-2009. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | |||||
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. (Tulare Lake Basin Plan) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin Second Edition. rev. Jan 2004 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | Per the National Recommended Water Quality Criteria (USEPA 2006): The 1-hour average concentration (acute criterion or CMC) of total ammonia nitrogen (in mg N/L) for freshwater where salmonid fish are not present, which is not to be exceeded more than once every three years on average, is calculated using the following equation: CMC=0.411/(1+10^(7.204 - pH)) + 58.4/(1+10^(pH - 7.204)). | ||||
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 at two monitoring sites [Elk Bayou at Road 96 - 558EBAR96 and Elk Bayou - 558ELKSP5]. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Water samples were collected intermittently between 7/19/2006 and 7/15/2009 | ||||
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 |
87694 |
Region 5 |
Elk Bayou (Tulare County) |
||
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 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 five samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the 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 five samples exceed the water quality objective and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples are needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 63460 | ||||
Pollutant: | Arsenic | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
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 Elk Bayou (Tulare County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 5 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 Elk Bayou (Tulare County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [Elk Bayou - 558ELKSP5, Elk Bayou at Road 96 (SSJWQC)] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/13/2008-7/21/2009. | ||||
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 |
93162 |
Region 5 |
Elk Bayou (Tulare County) |
||
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 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 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 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 zero samples exceed the 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 are needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 63386 | ||||
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 Elk Bayou (Tulare County) 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 Elk Bayou (Tulare County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [Elk Bayou - 558ELKSP5, Elk Bayou at Road 96 (SSJWQC)] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/13/2008-7/21/2009. | ||||
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 |
92702 |
Region 5 |
Elk Bayou (Tulare County) |
||
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 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 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 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 six samples exceed the 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 are needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 79350 | ||||
Pollutant: | Boron | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Agricultural Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
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 Elk Bayou (Tulare County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 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 Elk Bayou (Tulare County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Elk Bayou - 558ELKSP5, Elk Bayou at Road 96 (SSJWQC)] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 7/19/2006-7/21/2009. | ||||
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 |
88204 |
Region 5 |
Elk Bayou (Tulare County) |
||
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 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 four samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the 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 four samples exceed the water quality objective and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples are needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 63389 | ||||
Pollutant: | Cadmium | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed AgWaiver data for Elk Bayou (Tulare County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 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 Elk Bayou (Tulare County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Elk Bayou - 558ELKSP5, Elk Bayou at Road 96 - 558EBAR96] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/22/2009-7/21/2009. | ||||
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 |
88205 |
Region 5 |
Elk Bayou (Tulare County) |
||
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 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 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 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 six samples exceed the 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 are needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 63390 | ||||
Pollutant: | Carbaryl | ||||
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 Elk Bayou (Tulare County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 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 Elk Bayou (Tulare County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [Elk Bayou - 558ELKSP5, Elk Bayou at Road 96 (SSJWQC)] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 7/19/2006-7/21/2009. | ||||
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 |
92703 |
Region 5 |
Elk Bayou (Tulare County) |
||
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 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 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 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 six samples exceed the 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 are needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 63391 | ||||
Pollutant: | Carbofuran | ||||
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 Elk Bayou (Tulare County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 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 Elk Bayou (Tulare County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [Elk Bayou - 558ELKSP5, Elk Bayou at Road 96 (SSJWQC)] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 7/19/2006-7/21/2009. | ||||
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 |
73348 |
Region 5 |
Elk Bayou (Tulare County) |
||
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 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 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 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 zero samples exceed the 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 are needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 78633 | ||||
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 Deer Creek (Tulare County) to determine beneficial use support. The single sample result is reported at a level below its median detection limit value. Since the method detection limit value is greater than the criterion for Chlordane, the sample result could not be used to determine whether their is an exceedance. 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Chlordane. | ||||
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 evaluation guideline for Chlordane, 0.0043 ug/L, is the CTR for freshwater aquatic life protection from chronic exposure. This criterion is based on 304(a) aquatic life criterion issued in 1980, and was issued in following documents Chlordane (EPA 440/5-80-027. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Elk Bayou (Tulare County) was collected at one monitoring site [Elk Bayou - 558ELKSP5] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on 7/19/2006 | ||||
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 |
88206 |
Region 5 |
Elk Bayou (Tulare County) |
||
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 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 four samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the 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 four samples exceed the water quality objective and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples are needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 63393 | ||||
Pollutant: | Copper | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed AgWaiver data for Elk Bayou (Tulare County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 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 Elk Bayou (Tulare County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Elk Bayou - 558ELKSP5, Elk Bayou at Road 96 - 558EBAR96] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/22/2009-7/21/2009. | ||||
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 |
92704 |
Region 5 |
Elk Bayou (Tulare County) |
||
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 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 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 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 six samples exceed the 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 are needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 63394 | ||||
Pollutant: | Cyanazine | ||||
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 Elk Bayou (Tulare County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 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 Elk Bayou (Tulare County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [Elk Bayou - 558ELKSP5, Elk Bayou at Road 96 (SSJWQC)] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 8/7/2006-7/21/2009. | ||||
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 |
88177 |
Region 5 |
Elk Bayou (Tulare County) |
||
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 of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of four water sample results exceed the evaluation guideline for diazinon.
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. None of four water sample results exceed the evaluation guideline for diazinon, 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 sufficient 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: | 63399 | ||||
Pollutant: | Diazinon | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
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 Elk Bayou (Tulare County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 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 Elk Bayou (Tulare County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [Elk Bayou - 558ELKSP5, Elk Bayou at Road 96 (SSJWQC)] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/13/2008-7/21/2009. | ||||
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 |
92879 |
Region 5 |
Elk Bayou (Tulare County) |
||
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 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 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 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 five samples exceed the 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 are needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 63401 | ||||
Pollutant: | Dieldrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
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 Elk Bayou (Tulare County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 5 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 Elk Bayou (Tulare County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [Elk Bayou - 558ELKSP5, Elk Bayou at Road 96 (SSJWQC)] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/13/2008-7/21/2009. | ||||
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 |
92992 |
Region 5 |
Elk Bayou (Tulare County) |
||
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 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 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 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 three samples exceed the 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 are needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 63403 | ||||
Pollutant: | Disulfoton | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 3 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Elk Bayou (Tulare County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 3 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 Elk Bayou (Tulare County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [Elk Bayou - 558ELKSP5, Elk Bayou at Road 96 (SSJWQC)] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/13/2008-7/21/2009. | ||||
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 |
93047 |
Region 5 |
Elk Bayou (Tulare County) |
||
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 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 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 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 six samples exceed the 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 are needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 78569 | ||||
Pollutant: | Diuron | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Aquatic Life 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: | State Water Board staff assessed ILRP data for Elk Bayou (Tulare County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: none of the six samples exceed the criterion for Diuron. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Merced Irrigation District, 2005-2008. | ||||
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: | 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: | 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 Elk Bayou (Tulare County) was collected at two monitoring sites [Elk Bayou - 558ELKSP5; Elk Bayou at Road 96 - 558EBAR96] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected between 7/19/2006 and 7/21/2009 | ||||
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 |
87858 |
Region 5 |
Elk Bayou (Tulare County) |
||
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 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 six samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the 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 six samples exceed the water quality objective and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples are needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 79365 | ||||
Pollutant: | Endosulfan sulfate | ||||
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: | State Water Board staff assessed ILRP data for Elk Bayou (Tulare County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 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 Elk Bayou (Tulare County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Elk Bayou - 558ELKSP5, Elk Bayou at Road 96 (SSJWQC)] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 7/19/2006-7/21/2009. | ||||
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 |
92302 |
Region 5 |
Elk Bayou (Tulare County) |
||
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 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 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 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 one samples exceed the 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 are needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 63404 | ||||
Pollutant: | Endrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
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: | Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Elk Bayou (Tulare County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 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 Elk Bayou (Tulare County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [Elk Bayou - 558ELKSP5, Elk Bayou at Road 96 (SSJWQC)] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 7/19/2006-7/21/2009. | ||||
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 |
93220 |
Region 5 |
Elk Bayou (Tulare County) |
||
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 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 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 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 zero samples exceed the 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 are needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 63409 | ||||
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 Elk Bayou (Tulare County) 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 Elk Bayou (Tulare County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [Elk Bayou - 558ELKSP5, Elk Bayou at Road 96 (SSJWQC)] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/13/2008-7/21/2009. | ||||
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 |
93223 |
Region 5 |
Elk Bayou (Tulare County) |
||
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 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 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 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 zero samples exceed the 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 are needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 63410 | ||||
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 Elk Bayou (Tulare County) 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 Elk Bayou (Tulare County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [Elk Bayou - 558ELKSP5, Elk Bayou at Road 96 (SSJWQC)] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/13/2008-7/21/2009. | ||||
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 |
91686 |
Region 5 |
Elk Bayou (Tulare County) |
||
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 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. One of one water sample analyzed for E. coli exceeds the water quality objective. Three of six water samples analyzed for fecal coliform exceeds the water quality objective. One of six water samples analyzed for total coliform exceeds the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the 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 one water sample analyzed for E. coli exceeds the water quality objective,and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. Three of six water samples analyzed for fecal coliform exceeds the water quality objective, and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. One of six water samples analyzed for total coliform exceeds the water quality 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: | 63405 | ||||
Pollutant: | Escherichia coli (E. coli) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Water Contact Recreation | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PATHOGEN MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Elk Bayou (Tulare County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 1 of 1 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, 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 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 Elk Bayou (Tulare County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Elk Bayou - 558ELKSP5] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 2/22/2009. | ||||
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: | 63406 | ||||
Pollutant: | Fecal Coliform | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Water Contact Recreation | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 3 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PATHOGEN MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Elk Bayou (Tulare County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 3 of 6 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 Elk Bayou (Tulare County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [Elk Bayou - 558ELKSP5, Elk Bayou at Road 96 (SSJWQC)] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/13/2008-7/21/2009. | ||||
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 |
88040 |
Region 5 |
Elk Bayou (Tulare County) |
||
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 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 four samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the 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 four samples exceed the water quality objective and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples are needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 63411 | ||||
Pollutant: | Lead | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed AgWaiver data for Elk Bayou (Tulare County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 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 lead 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 Elk Bayou (Tulare County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Elk Bayou - 558ELKSP5, Elk Bayou at Road 96 - 558EBAR96] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/22/2009-7/21/2009. | ||||
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 |
92366 |
Region 5 |
Elk Bayou (Tulare County) |
||
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 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 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 section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of one sample exceeded the 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 are needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 63412 | ||||
Pollutant: | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
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: | Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Elk Bayou (Tulare County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for HCH, gamma. Five 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: | 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 Elk Bayou (Tulare County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [Elk Bayou - 558ELKSP5, Elk Bayou at Road 96 - 558EBAR96] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 7/19/2006-7/21/2009. | ||||
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 |
88042 |
Region 5 |
Elk Bayou (Tulare County) |
||
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 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 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 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 and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples are needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 63414 | ||||
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 Elk Bayou (Tulare County) 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 Elk Bayou (Tulare County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [Elk Bayou - 558ELKSP5, Elk Bayou at Road 96 (SSJWQC)] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/13/2008-7/21/2009. | ||||
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 |
88096 |
Region 5 |
Elk Bayou (Tulare County) |
||
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 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 five 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 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 five samples exceed the 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 are needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 63417 | ||||
Pollutant: | Methomyl | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
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 Elk Bayou (Tulare County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 5 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 Elk Bayou (Tulare County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [Elk Bayou - 558ELKSP5, Elk Bayou at Road 96 (SSJWQC)] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/13/2008-7/21/2009. | ||||
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 |
92538 |
Region 5 |
Elk Bayou (Tulare County) |
||
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 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 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 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 six samples exceeded the 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 are needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 63418 | ||||
Pollutant: | Methoxychlor | ||||
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 Elk Bayou (Tulare County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 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 Elk Bayou (Tulare County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [Elk Bayou - 558ELKSP5, Elk Bayou at Road 96 (SSJWQC)] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 7/19/2006-7/21/2009. | ||||
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 |
92593 |
Region 5 |
Elk Bayou (Tulare County) |
||
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 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 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 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 zero samples exceeded the 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 are needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 63419 | ||||
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 Elk Bayou (Tulare County) 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 Elk Bayou (Tulare County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [Elk Bayou - 558ELKSP5, Elk Bayou at Road 96 (SSJWQC)] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/13/2008-7/21/2009. | ||||
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 |
92596 |
Region 5 |
Elk Bayou (Tulare County) |
||
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 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 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 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 five samples exceeded the 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 are needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 79309 | ||||
Pollutant: | Mirex | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
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 Elk Bayou (Tulare County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 5 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 Elk Bayou (Tulare County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Elk Bayou - 558ELKSP5, Elk Bayou at Road 96 (SSJWQC)] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/13/2008-7/21/2009. | ||||
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 |
88098 |
Region 5 |
Elk Bayou (Tulare County) |
||
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 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 four samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the 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 four samples exceed the water quality objective and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples are needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 63423 | ||||
Pollutant: | Nickel | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed AgWaiver data for Elk Bayou (Tulare County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 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 Elk Bayou (Tulare County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Elk Bayou - 558ELKSP5, Elk Bayou at Road 96 - 558EBAR96] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/22/2009-7/21/2009. | ||||
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 |
83155 |
Region 5 |
Elk Bayou (Tulare County) |
||
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. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The single sample result does not 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. The single sample result does not exceed the 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: | 59616 | ||||
Pollutant: | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
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: | 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 558ELKSP5 (Elk Bayou). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples collected on 2/22/2009. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | 1 | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
92767 |
Region 5 |
Elk Bayou (Tulare County) |
||
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 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 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 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 exceeded the 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 are needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 63425 | ||||
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 Elk Bayou (Tulare County) 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 Elk Bayou (Tulare County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [Elk Bayou - 558ELKSP5] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 2/22/2009. | ||||
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 |
88208 |
Region 5 |
Elk Bayou (Tulare County) |
||
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 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 five samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the 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 five samples exceed the water quality objective and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples are needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 63431 | ||||
Pollutant: | Selenium | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
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 Elk Bayou (Tulare County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 5 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 Elk Bayou (Tulare County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [Elk Bayou - 558ELKSP5, Elk Bayou at Road 96 (SSJWQC)] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/13/2008-7/21/2009. | ||||
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 |
92882 |
Region 5 |
Elk Bayou (Tulare County) |
||
Pollutant: | Temperature, water |
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 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. Two of five samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the 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. Two of five samples exceeded the water quality 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: | 63433 | ||||
Pollutant: | Temperature, water | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 2 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed Ag Waiver data for Elk Bayou (Tulare County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 2 of 5 samples exceed the criterion for Water Temperature. | ||||
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: | Inland Fishes of California (Moyle 1976) states that for rainbow trout the optimum range for growth and completion of most life stages is 13-21 degrees C (page 129). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Inland Fishes of California (1976) | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Elk Bayou (Tulare County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [Elk Bayou - 558ELKSP5, Elk Bayou at Road 96 (SSJWQC)] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/13/2008-7/21/2009. | ||||
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 |
92825 |
Region 5 |
Elk Bayou (Tulare County) |
||
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 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 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 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 five samples exceeded the 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 are needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 63434 | ||||
Pollutant: | Thiobencarb/Bolero | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
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 Elk Bayou (Tulare County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 5 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 Elk Bayou (Tulare County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [Elk Bayou - 558ELKSP5, Elk Bayou at Road 96 (SSJWQC)] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/13/2008-7/21/2009. | ||||
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 |
92826 |
Region 5 |
Elk Bayou (Tulare County) |
||
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 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 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 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 zero samples exceeded the 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 are needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 63436 | ||||
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 Elk Bayou (Tulare County) 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 Elk Bayou (Tulare County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [Elk Bayou - 558ELKSP5, Elk Bayou at Road 96 (SSJWQC)] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/13/2008-7/21/2009. | ||||
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 |
88263 |
Region 5 |
Elk Bayou (Tulare County) |
||
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 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 four samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the 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 four samples exceed the water quality objective and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples are needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 63439 | ||||
Pollutant: | Zinc | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed AgWaiver data for Elk Bayou (Tulare County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 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 Elk Bayou (Tulare County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Elk Bayou - 558ELKSP5, Elk Bayou at Road 96 - 558EBAR96] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 2/22/2009-7/21/2009. | ||||
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 |
75676 |
Region 5 |
Elk Bayou (Tulare County) |
||
Pollutant: | Oxygen, Dissolved |
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 3.2 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. Five of the 21 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. Five of 21 samples exceed the water quality objective and this exceeds 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 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: | 63424 | ||||
Pollutant: | Oxygen, Dissolved | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold 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 to determine beneficial use support: One of six 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 [Elk Bayou-558ELKSP5 and Elk Bayou at Road 96-558EBAR96]. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | One sample was collected in 2006, one sample was collected in 2008, and four samples were collected in 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: | 22076 | ||||
Pollutant: | Oxygen, Dissolved | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Aquatic Life Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 15 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 4 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Fifteen samples were taken from Elk Bayou between 2005 and 2006. Four of the fifteen 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 (COLD) Cold Freshwater Habitat criterion is a Minimum Dissolved Oxygen content of 7mg/L | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin Second Edition. rev. Jan 2004 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the Elk Bayou in Tulare County. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected between February 2005 and July 2006. Samples were collected at 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): | |||||