| Water Body Name: | Tule River, Lower |
| Water Body ID: | CAR5581000020020701150855 |
| Water Body Type: | River & Stream |
DECISION ID |
11618 |
Region 5 |
Tule River, Lower |
||
| Pollutant: | Oxygen, Dissolved |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
| Revision Status | Revised |
| 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. Three of the 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. Three of 37 samples fell below the minimum criterion water quality objective listed in the Tulare Lake Basin Plan and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
| USEPA Action (if applicable): | |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 23191 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Oxygen, Dissolved | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Aquatic Life Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 37 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 3 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Thirty-seven samples were taken from the Tule River between 2003 and 2007. Three of the thirty-seven samples fell below the Water Quality Objective for minimum dissolved oxygen content in surface water. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Revised Draft of the 2007 Review of the Monitoring Data for the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Conditional Waiver Program | ||||
| Monitoring and Reporting Program, Order Nos. R5-2003-0826, R5-2005-0833, and R5-2008-0005 for Coalition Groups Under Resolution No. R5-2003-0105, Conditional Waiver of Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges From Irrigated Lands Within the Central Valley Region | |||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | From the Tulare Lake Basin Plan the (WARM) Warm Freshwater Habitat is a Minimum Dissolved Oxygen content of 5mg/L. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the Tule River in Tulare County. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected between June 2003 and January 2007. Samples were collected at bi-monthly and monthly intervals. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Data quality: Good. Monitoring was conducted in accordance with Central Valley Water Board Monitoring and Reporting Program (order number R5-2003-0826) requirements (CVRWQCB, 2003) | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
6695 |
Region 5 |
Tule River, Lower |
||
| Pollutant: | Invasive Species |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2006) |
| 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 3.10 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.10 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Data from a 1969-71 study was compared to previous data from 1898, 1934, and 1940-41. The comparison showed that as non-native species increased over time, the number of native species decreased. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. This study was conducted from 1969-1971 at 167 locations. 2. Baseline data was from studies conducted in 1898, 1934, and 1940-1941. 3. Data was compared over time to show presence or not of non-native and native fish species. 4. In a 1898 survey: 9 native species were collected, 0 non-native species were collected; in a 1934 survey: 10 native species were collected and 4 non-native species were collected; in a 1940-1941 survey: 13 native species were collected and 8 non-native species were collected; and in a 1969-71 survey (this study): 6 native species were collected and 7 non-native species were collected. As the number of non-native fish species increased, the number of native fish species decreased over time. 5. It cannot be determined if the trend in water quality is expected to meet water standards by the next listing cycle. 6. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | No new data were assessed for 2008. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available and are assessed. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | This is a decision made by the State Water Resources Control Board and approved by the USEPA in 2006 . No new data were assessed by the Regional Board for 2008. The decision has not changed. |
| USEPA Action (if applicable): | |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 2831 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Invasive Species | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Population/Community Degradation | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Fish tissue analysis | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Two previous studies (conducted in 1969-71) (Moyle and Nichols, 1973; Moyle and Nichols, 1974) were used as baseline comparisons to a study conducted in 1986 (Brown and Moyle, 1993). Species percent collection data were the same for each baseline study at the sampling sites. The baseline studies and this study sampled the same geographic area, with similar sampling sizes. The baseline data was compared to the data collected in 1986. The comparison showed an overall net increase of native species observed at all sampling sites, as well as a net increase in non-native species. The data was based on the percentage of sites the species were collected at for each study. Overall, some native species were collected at more sites in 1986 (an increase in percent) than in the 1969-71 studies (Brown and Moyle, 1993). Some non-native species were collected at more sites (an increase in percent) than in the 1969-71 studies. Eight native species increased in the watersheds they were observed (collected at more sites over time) from 1969-71 to 1986, while 5 native species decreased (collected at less sites over time). Nine non-native species increased over time (collected at more sites over time) from 1969-71 to 1986, while 7 non-native species decreased (collected at less sites over time). | ||||
| Data Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. This objective applies regardless of whether the toxicity is caused by a single substance or the interactive effect of multiple substances. Compliance with this objective will be determined by analyses of indicator organisms, species diversity, population density, growth anomalies, and biotoxicity tests of appropriate duration or other methods as specified by the Regional Water Board. Taken from Region 5 Basin Plan, Page III-8.00, Water Quality Objectives. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Stanislaus, Tuolumne, Merced, Chowchilla, Fresno, San Joaquin, Kings, Kaweah, and Tule Rivers, between 90 and 1100 meters elevation. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Baseline studies: 37 samples taken during the summer and autumn of 1969, 1970 and 1971 and 130 samples were taken from 7/27-9/4/1970. Another survey was conducted from Sept. 1985 to Sept. 1986 at 186 sites. Only 156 sites were used from this study for statistical analyses, (Brown and Moyle, 1993). | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Changes in relative diversity and abundance of native species may also be driven by habitat alteration, flow changes, or hydromodification. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | Peer Reviewed Journal Articles. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||