Water Body Name: | Pleasant Grove Creek, South Branch |
Water Body ID: | CAR5192200020070510153551 |
Water Body Type: | River & Stream |
DECISION ID |
10289 |
Region 5 |
Pleasant Grove Creek, South Branch |
||
Pollutant: | Specific Conductivity |
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 listing under sections 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Data is available from 1 line of evidence for this pollutant. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is not sufficient justification for placing this water segment-pollution combination on the section 303(d) list. The recommendation is based on staff findings that 0 of 6 available concentrations exceeded the water quality objective and this does not exceed the allowable frequency using Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Table 3.2 of the listing policy recommends listing if a sample size of 6 has 5 or more samples that exceed the evaluation criteria.
The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 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: | 20986 | ||||
Pollutant: | Specific Conductivity | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | None of the 6 samples collected by the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program exceeded the "recommended" Secondary MCL of 900 uS/cm for electrical conductivity | ||||
Data Reference: | SWAMP data entered by SWRCB into BDAT database | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The secondary MCLs for electrical conductivity provide a range of values including a "recommended" level (900 uS/cm), upper level (1600 uS/cm) and a short-term level (2200 uS/cm). The recommended concentration was used as it is intended to be protective of all drinking water uses | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 4, Chapter 15. Domestic Water Quality and Monitoring | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from Pleasant Grove, South Branch downstream of Blue Oaks Boulevard, at North Fork (at Diamond Oaks Boulevard), at South Fork (at Diamond Oaks Boulevard), at Foothills Boulevard, and at Painted Desert Road | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between September 25, 2004 and October 24, 2004 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Monitoring was conducted in accordance with the State Water Resources Control Board's Quality Assurance Program Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
9760 |
Region 5 |
Pleasant Grove Creek, South Branch |
||
Pollutant: | pH |
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 listing under sections 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Data is available from 1 line of evidence for this pollutant. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is not sufficient justification for placing this water segment-pollution combination on the section 303(d) list. The recommendation is based on staff findings that 0 of 6 available concentrations exceeded the water quality objective and this does not exceed the allowable frequency using Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Table 3.2 of the listing policy recommends listing if a sample size of 6 has 5 or more samples that exceed the evaluation criteria.
The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 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: | 20983 | ||||
Pollutant: | pH | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Aquatic Life Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | 0 of the 6 samples collected by the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program exceeded the evaluation objective for pH. | ||||
Data Reference: | SWAMP data entered by SWRCB into BDAT database | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | pH levels should not be lower than 6.5 or higher than 8.5 (Basin Plan Objective) | ||||
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 at SBPG Ck (d/s Blue Oaks Blvd). Samples were collected at SBPG Ck @ (N Fork @ Diamnd Oaks Blvd.). Samples were collected at SBPG Ck @ (S Fork @ Diamnd Oaks Blvd.). Samples were collected at SBPG Ck @ Foothills Blvd. Samples were collected at SBPG Ck @ Painted Desert Rd. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected from Sep 25 2004 to Oct 24 2004 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Monitoring was conducted in accordance with the State Water Resources Control Board's Quality Assurance Program Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
16340 |
Region 5 |
Pleasant Grove Creek, South Branch |
||
Pollutant: | Oxygen, Dissolved |
Final Listing Decision: | List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Sources: | Source Unknown |
Expected TMDL Completion Date: | 2021 |
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. Thirteen 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 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. 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. Thirteen of 21 samples exceed the Basin Plan objective of 7 mg/L 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. |
USEPA Action (if applicable): | USEPA approved the listing of this water body as a water quality limited segment requiring a TMDL for this pollutant. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 21131 | ||||
Pollutant: | Oxygen, Dissolved | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Aquatic Life Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 21 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 13 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Thirteen of 21 samples collected by the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program exceeded the evaluation objective for dissolved oxygen. | ||||
Data Reference: | SWAMP data entered by SWRCB into BDAT database | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Basin Plan Objective sets the minimum Dissolved Oxygen content at 7 mg/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 South Branch Pleasant Grove Creek at Pleasant Grove Blvd., South Branch Pleasant Grove Creek at Painted Desert Road, South Branch Pleasant Grove Creek (downstream of Blue Oaks Blvd.), South Branch Pleasant Grove Creek (North Fork at Diamond Oaks Blvd.), and South Branch Pleasant Grove Creek at Foothills Blvd. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected from December 2000 through October 2004. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Monitoring was conducted in accordance with the State Water Resources Control Board's Quality Assurance Program Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
12116 |
Region 5 |
Pleasant Grove Creek, South Branch |
||
Pollutant: | Pyrethroids |
Final Listing Decision: | List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Sources: | Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers |
Expected TMDL Completion Date: | 2021 |
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. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Four 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 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. 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. Four of 4 samples exceed the narrative toxicity objective due to occurrences of statistically significant sediment toxicity and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Sediment-bound pyrethroid pesticide concentrations were used to calculate toxic units (TUs) of multiple pyrethroid pesticides observed in sediments. Pyrethroid TU analyses correlated with distribution and magnitude of toxicity. 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. |
USEPA Action (if applicable): | USEPA approved the listing of this water body as a water quality limited segment requiring a TMDL for this pollutant. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 22651 | ||||
Pollutant: | Sediment Toxicity | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Toxicity | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Aquatic Life Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 4 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Four of four statistically significant sediment toxicity testing samples violated the narrative toxicity objective. The four toxic (Mean mortality + standard deviation) sediment samples were collected from:South Branch Pleasant Grove Creek at Diamond Oaks Boulevard 10/24/04: 98+5South Branch Pleasant Grove Creek at Foothills Boulevard10/24/04: 18+10South Branch Pleasant Grove Creek at Painted Desert Road9/25/04: 99+410/24/04: 100+0. Toxicity observations were associated with pyrethroid pesticides. | ||||
Data Reference: | Five reports and 1 abstract (all PDFs) for SWAMP studies in the Lower Sacramento River: "R5SWAMP04-05_1.pdf" [Weston, D.P, R.W. Holmes, J. You, and M.J. Lydy. 2005. Aquatic toxicity due to residential use of pyrethroid insecticides. Environmental Science and Technology 39 (Dec. 15): 9778-9784.] "rb5_sedimentchem_rptmain.pdf" [Holmes, R.W. 2004. Monitoring of Sediment-bound Contaminants In the Lower Sacramento River Watershed Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Lower Sacramento River Watershed, Final Report. Regional Water Quality Control Board - Central Valley Region. July 2004.]; "Sac_River_Benthic_Rpt.pdf" [Holmes, R.W., V. de Vlaming, D. Markiewicz, and K. Goding. 2005. Benthic Macroinvertebrate Colonization on Artificial Substrates in Agriculture-dominated Waterways of the Lower Sacramento River Watershed, Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Lower Sacramento River Watershed. Regional Water Quality Control Board-Central Valley Region and U.C. Davis Aquatic Toxicology Laboratory and School of Veterinary Medicine. June 2005.]; "Sac_River_BioReport_Final.pdf" [V. de Vlaming, D. Markiwiecz, K. Goding, T. Kimball, and R. Holmes. Macroinvertebrate Assemblages in Agriculture- and Effluent-dominated Waterways of the Lower Sacramento River Watershed. Regional Water Quality Control Board-Central Valley Region, Moss Landing Laboratories, and U.C. Davis Aquatic Toxicology Laboratory and School of Veterinary Medicine.]; "sedimentchem.pdf" [R. W. Holmes. Monitoring of Sediment-bound Contaminants In the Lower Sacramento River Watershed Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Lower Sacramento River Watershed, Final Report. Regional Water Quality Control Board - Central Valley Region. July 2004.]; "SWAMP03-04zooplankton_1.pdf" [V. de Vlaming, K. Goding, D. Markiwiecz, R. Wallace, and R. Holmes. Survey of Zooplankton Community Structure and Abundance in Agriculture-dominated Waterways in the Lower Sacramento River Watershed. Regional Water Quality Control Board-Central Valley Region and U.C. Davis Aquatic Toxicology Laboratory and School of Veterinary Medicine. May 2006.] | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (CVRWQCB, 2007) | ||||
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: | Statistically significant difference from control sediment using Dunnett's test in 10-day Hyalella azteca sediment toxicity tests. Arcsin squareroot transformation was used when necessary to meet the assumptions of normality and homogeneity of variance. Steel's test was used for comparison to control if these assumptions were not met after transformation. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Methods for Measuring the Toxicity and Bioaccumulation of Sediment-associated Contaminants with Freshwater Invertebrates, Second Edition. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research and Development, Duluth, MI , U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water, Washington, DC EPA-600/R-99/064 | ||||
Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5 | |||||
Distribution and Toxicity of Sediment-Associated Pesticides in Agriculture-Dominated Water Bodies of Californias Central Valley | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from three locations along South Branch Pleasant Grove Creek in the City of Roseville from Diamond Oaks Boulevard on the upstream to Painted Desert Road on the downstream. Two of the four samples were collected from the Painted Desert Road site about one month apart. Sediment toxicity was observed from all four samples and was of higher magnitude in the more residential dominated areas near stormwater outfalls. Sample locations: South Branch Pleasant Grove Creek at Diamond Oaks Boulevard; South Branch Pleasant Grove Creek at Foothills Boulevard; South Branch Pleasant Grove Creek at Painted Desert Road. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected September 2004 - October 2004. Data collected during late summer. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Data quality: Excellent.. Monitoring was conducted in accordance with the State Water Resources Control Board's Quality Assurance Program Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 30944 | ||||
Pollutant: | Pyrethroids | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Aquatic Life Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 4 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Four of four statistically significant sediment toxicity testing samples violated the narrative toxicity objective. Toxicity observations were associated with pyrethroid pesticides. LC50s for sediment-bound pyrethroids were used in this study as toxicity threshold benchmarks in a Toxic Unit (TU) analysis normalized to organic carbon content. The TU analysis of South Branch Pleasant Grove Creek sediment samples demonstrated that the four toxic samples had pyrethroid pesticide concentrations that would be expected to be acutely toxic. Three of the four toxic samples had 2 - 3 TUs or greater of pyrethroid pesticides. Bifenthrin appears to play a dominant role in the toxicity observations, but was not the only pyrethroid found in toxic sediment samples. Other pyrethroids observed in the toxic samples from South Branch Pleasant Grove Creek included cyfluthrin, cypermethrin, deltamethrin, esfenvalerate, lambda-cyhalothrin, and permethrin. | ||||
Data Reference: | Five reports and 1 abstract (all PDFs) for SWAMP studies in the Lower Sacramento River: "R5SWAMP04-05_1.pdf" [Weston, D.P, R.W. Holmes, J. You, and M.J. Lydy. 2005. Aquatic toxicity due to residential use of pyrethroid insecticides. Environmental Science and Technology 39 (Dec. 15): 9778-9784.] "rb5_sedimentchem_rptmain.pdf" [Holmes, R.W. 2004. Monitoring of Sediment-bound Contaminants In the Lower Sacramento River Watershed Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Lower Sacramento River Watershed, Final Report. Regional Water Quality Control Board - Central Valley Region. July 2004.]; "Sac_River_Benthic_Rpt.pdf" [Holmes, R.W., V. de Vlaming, D. Markiewicz, and K. Goding. 2005. Benthic Macroinvertebrate Colonization on Artificial Substrates in Agriculture-dominated Waterways of the Lower Sacramento River Watershed, Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Lower Sacramento River Watershed. Regional Water Quality Control Board-Central Valley Region and U.C. Davis Aquatic Toxicology Laboratory and School of Veterinary Medicine. June 2005.]; "Sac_River_BioReport_Final.pdf" [V. de Vlaming, D. Markiwiecz, K. Goding, T. Kimball, and R. Holmes. Macroinvertebrate Assemblages in Agriculture- and Effluent-dominated Waterways of the Lower Sacramento River Watershed. Regional Water Quality Control Board-Central Valley Region, Moss Landing Laboratories, and U.C. Davis Aquatic Toxicology Laboratory and School of Veterinary Medicine.]; "sedimentchem.pdf" [R. W. Holmes. Monitoring of Sediment-bound Contaminants In the Lower Sacramento River Watershed Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Lower Sacramento River Watershed, Final Report. Regional Water Quality Control Board - Central Valley Region. July 2004.]; "SWAMP03-04zooplankton_1.pdf" [V. de Vlaming, K. Goding, D. Markiwiecz, R. Wallace, and R. Holmes. Survey of Zooplankton Community Structure and Abundance in Agriculture-dominated Waterways in the Lower Sacramento River Watershed. Regional Water Quality Control Board-Central Valley Region and U.C. Davis Aquatic Toxicology Laboratory and School of Veterinary Medicine. May 2006.] | ||||
SWAMP Data: | 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 Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | Statistically significant difference from control sediment using Dunnett's test in 10-day Hyalella azteca sediment toxicity tests. Arcsin squareroot transformation was used when necessary to meet the assumptions of normality and homogeneity of variance. Steel's test was used for comparison to control if these assumptions were not met after transformation. LC50 values, based on 10-day exposure to Hyallela azteca of pyrethroids in sediment samples, were used to determine Toxic Unit (TUs) for pyrethroids in sediments. Urban creek sediment sample pyrethroid concentrations were compared the TUs to determine exceedances. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Methods for Measuring the Toxicity and Bioaccumulation of Sediment-associated Contaminants with Freshwater Invertebrates, Second Edition. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research and Development, Duluth, MI , U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water, Washington, DC EPA-600/R-99/064 | ||||
Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5 | |||||
Distribution and Toxicity of Sediment-Associated Pesticides in Agriculture-Dominated Water Bodies of Californias Central Valley | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from three locations along South Branch Pleasant Grove Creek in the City of Roseville from Diamond Oaks Boulevard on the upstream to Painted Desert Road on the downstream. Two of the four samples were collected from the Painted Desert Road site about one month apart. Sediment toxicity was observed from all four samples and was of higher magnitude in the more residential dominated areas near stormwater outfalls.Sample locations:South Branch Pleasant Grove Creek at Diamond Oaks Boulevard; South Branch Pleasant Grove Creek at Foothills Boulevard; South Branch Pleasant Grove Creek at Painted Desert Road. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected September 2004 - October 2004. Data collected during late summer. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Data quality: Excellent. Monitoring was conducted in accordance with the State Water Resources Control Board's Quality Assurance Program Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
17939 |
Region 5 |
Pleasant Grove Creek, South Branch |
||
Pollutant: | Sediment Toxicity |
Final Listing Decision: | List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Sources: | Source Unknown |
Expected TMDL Completion Date: | 2021 |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | State Board Conclusion:
This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Four 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 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. 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. Four of 4 samples exceed the narrative toxicity objective due to occurrences of statistically significant sediment toxicity and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Sediment-bound pyrethroid pesticide concentrations were used to calculate toxic units (TUs) of multiple pyrethroid pesticides observed in sediments. Pyrethroid TU analyses correlated with distribution and magnitude of toxicity. 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: | N/A |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | This listing recommendation was developed by State Board staff. It was not part of the Regional Board Record. After review of the available data and information, SWRCB 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. |
USEPA Action (if applicable): | USEPA approved the listing of this water body as a water quality limited segment requiring a TMDL for this pollutant. |