| Water Body Name: | Elk Grove Creek |
| Water Body ID: | CAR5191100019980817130203 |
| Water Body Type: | River & Stream |
DECISION ID |
5216 |
Region 5 |
Elk Grove Creek |
||
| Pollutant: | Chlorpyrifos |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with USEPA approved TMDL) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | List on 303(d) list (being addressed by USEPA approved TMDL)(2006) |
| Revision Status | Revised |
| Sources: | Source Unknown |
| TMDL Name: | Sacramento Area Urban Creeks TMDLs |
| TMDL Project Code: | 194 |
| Date TMDL Approved by USEPA: | 11/30/2004 |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for removal from the 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. None of 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 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 7 available 4-day average concentrations exceeded the 4-day average maximum concentration criterion and a minimum sample size of 28 is needed to delist according to 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. |
| USEPA Action (if applicable): | |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 2641 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Chlorpyrifos | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 18 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Samples were collected beneath the water surface as near as possible to the center of the stream when water levels were low or when access was only possible from the bank. Otherwise, three to four grab samples were collected as one integrated grab sample. In 2001, 6 samples were taken at 3 sampling sites; all samples were non-detects (Spector et al., 2004). | ||||
| Data Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The narrative pesticide objectives state, in part:
- No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses, - Discharges shall not result in pesticide concentrations in bottom sediments or aquatic life that adversely affect beneficial uses, - Pesticide concentrations shall not exceed those allowable by applicable antidegradation policies, and - Pesticide concentrations shall not exceed the lowest levels technically and economically achievable. The Basin Plans narrative water quality objective for toxicity states that '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: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | CDFG Hazard Assessment Criteria - 14 ng/L 4-day average and 25 ng/L 1-hour average. | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | In 2001, Elk Grove Creek was monitored by the Regional Board at two sites - at Waterman Road and at Emerald Vista Drive. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Storm events were sampled during the orchard dormant spray season months of January and February 2001 and 2002, and January through April 2003, to determine pesticide concentrations in rain and creeks during and after the orchard dormant spray season. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | During each monitoring season, additional samples were collected for quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) purposes. Four types of quality assurance samples were collected to confirm the integrity of analytical results reported in this three-year monitoring study. The QA/QC samples included sample duplicates, equipment blanks, matrix spikes, and matrix spike duplicates. The procedures used for collecting the QA/QC samples are based on the San Joaquin River TMDL Quality Assurance Project Plan. During this 2001-2003 study, approximately 15-25 percent of the samples collected were either equipment blanks, sample duplicates, or matrix spikes and matrix spike duplicates. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 22099 | ||||
| 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: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | 11 water samples were collected from Elk Grove Creek from February 2004 to April 2007, representing 5 4-day average concentrations and 5 1-hour average concentrations. 6 samples were not used. 0 of 5 available 4-day average concentrations exceeded the 4-day maximum concentration guideline of 0.015 ug/L.0 of 5 available 1-hour average concentrations exceeded the maximum 1-hour concentration of 0.025 ug/L. 6 samples had detection limit of 0.05 ug/L, that is higher than the water quality criteria 0.015 and 0.025 ug/L, so the samples were not used in this analysis. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Sacramento River watershed program (SRWP) water quality database 1991-2003. Davis, CA | ||||
| 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 (CVRWQCB, 2007).All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (CVRWQCB, 2007). | ||||
| 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 | ||||
| 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: | California Department of Fish and Game Hazard Assessment Criteria - 0.015 ug/L 4-day average and 0.025 ug/L 1-hour average (Siepmann and Finlayson, 2000, with minor corrections to significant figures as described in Beaulaurier et al., 2005). | ||||
| 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 Grove Creek at Laguna | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected at variable intervals (e.g. two weeks, 20 days) from February 2004 to April 2007. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring: November 2000 Revision. Prepared for the Sacramento River Watershed Program by Larry Walker Associates (LWA), Davis, California. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 22098 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Chlorpyrifos | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Aquatic Life Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | 4 water samples were collected from Elk Grove Creek in February 2001, representing 2 4-day average concentrations and 4 1-hour average concentrations.0 of 2 available 4-day average concentrations exceeded the 4-day maximum concentration guideline of 0.015 ug/L. 0 of 4 available 1-hour average concentrations exceeded the maximum 1-hour concentration of 0.025 ug/L. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Concentrations of pesticides in Sacramento metropolitan area rainwater and creeks during the 2001, 2002, 2003 orchard dormant spray season. Rancho Cordova, CA: Central Valley RWQCB | ||||
| 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 (CVRWQCB, 2007).All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (CVRWQCB, 2007). | ||||
| 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 | ||||
| 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: | California Department of Fish and Game Hazard Assessment Criteria - 0.015 ug/L 4-day average and 0.025 ug/L 1-hour average (Siepmann and Finlayson, 2000, with minor corrections to significant figures as described in Beaulaurier et al., 2005). | ||||
| 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 Grove Creek at two sites: Waterman Road and Emerald Vista Drive. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected twice at each location in February 2001 | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Spector, Christy, Joe Karkoski, and Gene Davis. 2004. Concentrations of Pesticides in Sacramento Metropolitan Area Rainwater and Creeks during the 2001, 2002 and 2003 Orchard Dormant Spray Seasons. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
5179 |
Region 5 |
Elk Grove Creek |
||
| Pollutant: | Diazinon |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with USEPA approved TMDL) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | List on 303(d) list (being addressed by USEPA approved TMDL)(2006) |
| Revision Status | Revised |
| Sources: | Agriculture | Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers |
| TMDL Name: | Sacramento Area Urban Creeks TMDLs |
| TMDL Project Code: | 194 |
| Date TMDL Approved by USEPA: | 11/30/2004 |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.2 of the Listing Policy. Under 4.2 of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.
One lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 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 section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because a TMDL has been completed and approved by RWQCB and USEPA, and is expected to result in attainment of the standard.. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1 of the Policy. 3. Five of 11 available 4-day average concentrations exceeded the 4-day average maximum concentration criterion and these exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. In addition, 4 of 11 available 1-hour average concentrations exceeded the 4-day average concentration criterion and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Sacramento County Urban Creeks TMDL has been approved by the Central Valley Water Board in 2004 and approved by USEPA on 11/30/2004. 5. 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 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. |
| USEPA Action (if applicable): | |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 2643 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Diazinon | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 4 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Samples were collected beneath the water surface as near as possible to the center of the stream when water levels were low or when access was only possible from the bank. Otherwise, three to four grab samples were collected as one integrated grab sample.
In 2001, 6 samples were taken at 3 sampling sites; 2 samples at Waterman Road were non-detects; the 2 samples taken at Emerald Vista Drive and Florin Creek at Franklin Blvd. exceeded the CDFG criteria (Spector et al., 2004). |
||||
| Data Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The narrative pesticide objectives state, in part:
- No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses, - Discharges shall not result in pesticide concentrations in bottom sediments or aquatic life that adversely affect beneficial uses, - Pesticide concentrations shall not exceed those allowable by applicable antidegradation policies, and - Pesticide concentrations shall not exceed the lowest levels technically and economically achievable. The Basin Plans narrative water quality objective for toxicity states that 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: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | CDFG Hazard Assessment Criteria 0.16 ug/L 1-hour average (Siepman & Finlayson, 2000; Finlayson, 2004). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | In 2001, Elk Grove Creek was monitored by the Regional Board at two sites - at Waterman Road and at Emerald Vista Drive. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Storm events were sampled during the orchard dormant spray season months of January and February 2001 and 2002, and January through April 2003, to determine pesticide concentrations in rain and creeks during and after the orchard dormant spray season. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | San Joaquin River TMDL Quality Assurance Project Plan. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 22082 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Diazinon | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Aquatic Life Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 11 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 5 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Eleven water samples were collected from Elk Grove Creek from February 2002 through February 2007, representing 11 4-day average concentrations and 11 1-hour average concentrations.5 of 11 four-day average concentrations exceeded the four day maximum concentration guideline of 0.100 ug/L.4 of 11 one-hour average concentrations exceeded the maximum 1-hour concentration of 0.160 ug/L. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Sacramento stormwater urban tributary NPDES permit monitoring data, 2003 to 2007 | ||||
| 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 (CVRWQCB, 2007).All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (CVRWQCB, 2007). | ||||
| 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 | ||||
| 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: | California Fish and Game Hazard Assessment Criteria - 0.160 ug/L 1-hour average and 0.100 ug/L 4-day average concentration (Siepmann and Finlayson, 2000 and Finlayson, 2004). | ||||
| 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 collected from Elk Grove Creek at Laguna. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected on 02/02/2004, 02/18/2004, 04/13/2004, 01/28/2005, 02/15/2005, 04/12/2005, 02/07/2006, 02/27/2006, 03/06/2006, 12/08/2006, and 02/09/2007.Stream located in an urban area. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Monitoring was conducted in accordance with Municipal Storm Water Permitting Program. Data was collected by the Sacramento Stormwater Quality Partnership for their municipal separate storm sewer systems permit. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||