Water Body Name: | Kaseberg Creek, unnamed eastern tributary (from Green Grove Ln to Del Webb Blvd) |
Water Body ID: | CAR5192200020120321143734 |
Water Body Type: | River & Stream |
DECISION ID |
94017 |
Region 5 |
Kaseberg Creek, unnamed eastern tributary (from Green Grove Ln to Del Webb Blvd) |
||
Pollutant: | Bifenthrin |
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 (TMDL required list)(2016) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Sources: | A Source Unknown |
TMDL Name: | Phase 2 (Pyrethroids)Sacramento and San Joaquin Pesticides Basin Plan Amendment and TMDLs |
TMDL Project Code: | 872 |
Date TMDL Approved by USEPA: | 04/22/2019 |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for removal on the CWA section 303(d) List under sections 2.2 and 4.11 of the Listing Policy. Under 4.11 of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.
Two 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 CWA section 303(d) List. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the CWA 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 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Three of the three samples exceed the evaluation guideline for COLD and this sample size is sufficient to determine beneficial use support, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy. There is an associated sediment toxicity data as required by Section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Central Valley Pyrethroid Pesticides TMDL and Basin Plan Amendment was approved by USEPA in 2019. 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: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 59093 | ||||
Pollutant: | Toxicity | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Toxicity | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 3 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 3 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | One-tenth the organic carbon normalized LC50 values for sediment-bound pyrethroids were used as toxicity thresholds in a toxicity unit (TU) analysis. Samples containing at least 2 pyrethroids with concentrations above the reporting limit were assessed for additive toxicity. 3 of 3 sediment samples indicated a calculated TU > 1, suggesting that samples had pyrethroid pesticides at levels expected to exert additive, chronic toxicity. A combination of 2 or more of the pyrethroids, bifenthrin, lambda-cyhalothrin, permethrin, cyfluthrin, cypermethrin, esfenvalerate, and deltamethrin were present in the assessed samples. | ||||
Data Reference: | Various Data for Pleasant Grove Creek, Del Puerto Creek and Roseville Area, 2006-2010. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | |||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | "The narrative toxicity objective states, ""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." | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for the TU analysis is based on the following: "The concentration of each toxic substance is divided by its toxicologic limit. The resulting ratios are added for substances having similar toxicologic effects and, separately, for carcinogens. The additive toxicity criterion has been violated if the sum of the ratios is >1 (CV Basin Plan, 2011)." | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Sediment samples were collected along Kaseberg Creek at the following station location in 2006, 2007 and 2008: PGC 11. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Sediment samples were collected on 05/18/2006, 05/09/2007, and 5/02/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Submitted QA data are acceptable. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Pyrethroid Working Group. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 59021 | ||||
Pollutant: | Bifenthrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 3 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 3 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | A total of 3 individual sediment samples were collected; 3 of 3 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline (0.043 ug/g OC). | ||||
Data Reference: | Various Data for Pleasant Grove Creek, Del Puerto Creek and Roseville Area, 2006-2010. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | |||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The narrative objective for pesticides states, "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." | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for bifenthrin, 0.043 ug/g OC, is one-tenth of the median lethal concentration for H. azteca (LC50; 0.43 ug/g OC). The LC50 (0.43 ug/g OC) is the geometric mean of OC normalized LC50 values for bifenthrin from Amweg et al. (2005) and Amweg and Weston (2007). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5 | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Whole-sediment toxicity identification evaluation tools for pyrethroid insecticides: I. piperonyl butoxide addition. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 26:2389-2396. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Sediment samples were collected along Kaseberg Creek at the following station location in 2006, 2007 and 2008: PGC 11. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Sediment samples were collected on 05/18/2006, 05/09/2007, and 5/02/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Submitted QA data are acceptable. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Pyrethroid Working Group. | ||||
DECISION ID |
93255 |
Region 5 |
Kaseberg Creek, unnamed eastern tributary (from Green Grove Ln to Del Webb Blvd) |
||
Pollutant: | Cyfluthrin |
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 (TMDL required list)(2016) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Sources: | A Source Unknown |
TMDL Name: | Phase 2 (Pyrethroids)Sacramento and San Joaquin Pesticides Basin Plan Amendment and TMDLs |
TMDL Project Code: | 872 |
Date TMDL Approved by USEPA: | 04/22/2019 |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for removal on the CWA section 303(d) List under sections 2.2 and 4.11 of the Listing Policy. Under 4.11 of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.
Two 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 CWA section 303(d) List. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the CWA 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 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Three of the three samples exceed the evaluation guideline for COLD and this sample size is sufficient to determine beneficial use support, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy. There is an associated sediment toxicity data as required by Section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Central Valley Pyrethroid Pesticides TMDL and Basin Plan Amendment was approved by USEPA in 2019. 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: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 59093 | ||||
Pollutant: | Toxicity | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Toxicity | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 3 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 3 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | One-tenth the organic carbon normalized LC50 values for sediment-bound pyrethroids were used as toxicity thresholds in a toxicity unit (TU) analysis. Samples containing at least 2 pyrethroids with concentrations above the reporting limit were assessed for additive toxicity. 3 of 3 sediment samples indicated a calculated TU > 1, suggesting that samples had pyrethroid pesticides at levels expected to exert additive, chronic toxicity. A combination of 2 or more of the pyrethroids, bifenthrin, lambda-cyhalothrin, permethrin, cyfluthrin, cypermethrin, esfenvalerate, and deltamethrin were present in the assessed samples. | ||||
Data Reference: | Various Data for Pleasant Grove Creek, Del Puerto Creek and Roseville Area, 2006-2010. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | |||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | "The narrative toxicity objective states, ""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." | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for the TU analysis is based on the following: "The concentration of each toxic substance is divided by its toxicologic limit. The resulting ratios are added for substances having similar toxicologic effects and, separately, for carcinogens. The additive toxicity criterion has been violated if the sum of the ratios is >1 (CV Basin Plan, 2011)." | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Sediment samples were collected along Kaseberg Creek at the following station location in 2006, 2007 and 2008: PGC 11. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Sediment samples were collected on 05/18/2006, 05/09/2007, and 5/02/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Submitted QA data are acceptable. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Pyrethroid Working Group. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 59057 | ||||
Pollutant: | Cyfluthrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 3 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 3 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | A total of 3 individual sediment samples were collected; 3 of 3 exceeded the evaluation guideline (0.11 ug/g OC). | ||||
Data Reference: | Various Data for Pleasant Grove Creek, Del Puerto Creek and Roseville Area, 2006-2010. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | |||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The narrative objective for pesticides states, "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." | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for cyfluthrin, 0.11 ug/g OC, is one-tenth of the median lethal concentration for H. azteca (LC50; 1.1 ug/g OC). The LC50 (1.1 ug/g OC) is the geometric mean of OC normalized LC50 values for cyfluthrin from Amweg et al. (2005). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Sediment samples were collected along Kaseberg Creek at the following station location in 2006, 2007 and 2008: PGC 11. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Sediment samples were collected on 05/18/2006, 05/09/2007, and 5/02/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Submitted QA data are acceptable. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Pyrethroid Working Group. | ||||
DECISION ID |
93309 |
Region 5 |
Kaseberg Creek, unnamed eastern tributary (from Green Grove Ln to Del Webb Blvd) |
||
Pollutant: | Cyhalothrin, Lambda |
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 (TMDL required list)(2016) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Sources: | A Source Unknown |
TMDL Name: | Phase 2 (Pyrethroids)Sacramento and San Joaquin Pesticides Basin Plan Amendment and TMDLs |
TMDL Project Code: | 872 |
Date TMDL Approved by USEPA: | 04/22/2019 |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for removal on the CWA section 303(d) List under sections 2.2 and 4.11 of the Listing Policy. Under 4.11 of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status
Two 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 CWA section 303(d) List. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the CWA 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 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Two of three samples exceed the evaluation guideline for COLD and this sample size is sufficient to determine beneficial use support, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy. There is an associated sediment toxicity data as required by Section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Central Valley Pyrethroid Pesticides TMDL and Basin Plan Amendment was approved by USEPA in 2019. 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: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 59093 | ||||
Pollutant: | Toxicity | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Toxicity | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 3 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 3 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | One-tenth the organic carbon normalized LC50 values for sediment-bound pyrethroids were used as toxicity thresholds in a toxicity unit (TU) analysis. Samples containing at least 2 pyrethroids with concentrations above the reporting limit were assessed for additive toxicity. 3 of 3 sediment samples indicated a calculated TU > 1, suggesting that samples had pyrethroid pesticides at levels expected to exert additive, chronic toxicity. A combination of 2 or more of the pyrethroids, bifenthrin, lambda-cyhalothrin, permethrin, cyfluthrin, cypermethrin, esfenvalerate, and deltamethrin were present in the assessed samples. | ||||
Data Reference: | Various Data for Pleasant Grove Creek, Del Puerto Creek and Roseville Area, 2006-2010. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | |||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | "The narrative toxicity objective states, ""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." | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for the TU analysis is based on the following: "The concentration of each toxic substance is divided by its toxicologic limit. The resulting ratios are added for substances having similar toxicologic effects and, separately, for carcinogens. The additive toxicity criterion has been violated if the sum of the ratios is >1 (CV Basin Plan, 2011)." | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Sediment samples were collected along Kaseberg Creek at the following station location in 2006, 2007 and 2008: PGC 11. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Sediment samples were collected on 05/18/2006, 05/09/2007, and 5/02/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Submitted QA data are acceptable. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Pyrethroid Working Group. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 59038 | ||||
Pollutant: | Cyhalothrin, Lambda | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 3 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 2 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | A total of 3 individual sediment samples were collected; 2 of 3 exceeded the evaluation guideline (0.044 ug/g OC). | ||||
Data Reference: | Various Data for Pleasant Grove Creek, Del Puerto Creek and Roseville Area, 2006-2010. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | |||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The narrative objective for pesticides states, "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." | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for lambda-cyhalothrin, 0.044 ug/g OC, is one-tenth of the median lethal concentration for H. azteca (LC50; 0.44 ug/g OC). The LC50 (0.44 ug/g OC) is the geometric mean of OC normalized LC50 values for lambda-cyhalothrin from Amweg et al. (2005). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Sediment samples were collected along Kaseberg Creek at the following station location in 2006, 2007 and 2008: PGC 11. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Sediment samples were collected on 05/18/2006, 05/09/2007, and 5/02/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Submitted QA data are acceptable. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Pyrethroid Working Group. | ||||
DECISION ID |
94108 |
Region 5 |
Kaseberg Creek, unnamed eastern tributary (from Green Grove Ln to Del Webb Blvd) |
||
Pollutant: | Cypermethrin |
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 (TMDL required list)(2016) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Sources: | A Source Unknown |
TMDL Name: | Phase 2 (Pyrethroids)Sacramento and San Joaquin Pesticides Basin Plan Amendment and TMDLs |
TMDL Project Code: | 872 |
Date TMDL Approved by USEPA: | 04/22/2019 |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for removal on the CWA section 303(d) List under sections 2.2 and 4.11 of the Listing Policy. Under 4.11 of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.
Two 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 CWA section 303(d) List. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the CWA 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 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Three of the three samples exceed the evaluation guideline for COLD and this sample size is sufficient to determine beneficial use support, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy. There is an associated sediment toxicity data as required by Section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Central Valley Pyrethroid Pesticides TMDL and Basin Plan Amendment was approved by USEPA in 2019. 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: | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 59066 | ||||
Pollutant: | Cypermethrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 3 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 3 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | A total of 3 individual sediment samples were collected; 3 of 3 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline (0.03 ug/g OC). | ||||
Data Reference: | Various Data for Pleasant Grove Creek, Del Puerto Creek and Roseville Area, 2006-2010. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | |||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The narrative objective for pesticides states, "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." | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for cypermethrin, 0.03 ug/g OC, is one-tenth of the median lethal concentration for H. azteca (LC50; 0.3 ug/g OC). The LC50 (0.3 ug/g OC) is the geometric mean of OC normalized LC50 values for cypermethrin from 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: | Sediment samples were collected along Kaseberg Creek at the following station location in 2006, 2007 and 2008: PGC 11. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Sediment samples were collected on 05/18/2006, 05/09/2007, and 5/02/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Submitted QA data are acceptable. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Pyrethroid Working Group. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 59093 | ||||
Pollutant: | Toxicity | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Toxicity | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 3 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 3 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | One-tenth the organic carbon normalized LC50 values for sediment-bound pyrethroids were used as toxicity thresholds in a toxicity unit (TU) analysis. Samples containing at least 2 pyrethroids with concentrations above the reporting limit were assessed for additive toxicity. 3 of 3 sediment samples indicated a calculated TU > 1, suggesting that samples had pyrethroid pesticides at levels expected to exert additive, chronic toxicity. A combination of 2 or more of the pyrethroids, bifenthrin, lambda-cyhalothrin, permethrin, cyfluthrin, cypermethrin, esfenvalerate, and deltamethrin were present in the assessed samples. | ||||
Data Reference: | Various Data for Pleasant Grove Creek, Del Puerto Creek and Roseville Area, 2006-2010. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | |||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | "The narrative toxicity objective states, ""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." | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for the TU analysis is based on the following: "The concentration of each toxic substance is divided by its toxicologic limit. The resulting ratios are added for substances having similar toxicologic effects and, separately, for carcinogens. The additive toxicity criterion has been violated if the sum of the ratios is >1 (CV Basin Plan, 2011)." | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Sediment samples were collected along Kaseberg Creek at the following station location in 2006, 2007 and 2008: PGC 11. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Sediment samples were collected on 05/18/2006, 05/09/2007, and 5/02/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Submitted QA data are acceptable. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Pyrethroid Working Group. | ||||
DECISION ID |
93068 |
Region 5 |
Kaseberg Creek, unnamed eastern tributary (from Green Grove Ln to Del Webb Blvd) |
||
Pollutant: | Benthic Community Effects |
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: | Benthic Community Effects is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under sections 3.9 of the Listing Policy.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this indicator. Based on the lack of reference sites for the Central Valley floor, the Central Valley IBI is not adequate to determine impairment thresholds at this time. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing Benthic Community Effects in this water segment 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. Based on the lack of reference sites for the Central Valley floor, the Central Valley IBI is not adequate to determine impairment thresholds at this time. 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: | 59101 | ||||
Pollutant: | Benthic-Macroinvertebrate Bioassessments | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Population/Community Degradation | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
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: | One site was sampled in 2006, 2007, and 2008 for a total of 3 individual IBI scores. Out of a possible IBI score of 100, sample scores ranged from 5 to 9. | ||||
Data Reference: | Various Data for Pleasant Grove Creek, Del Puerto Creek and Roseville Area, 2006-2010. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | |||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The narrative toxicity objective states, "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 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | Based on the lack of reference sites for the Central Valley floor, the Central Valley IBI is not adequate to determine impairment thresholds at this time. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
Spatial Representation: | BMI samples were collected along Kaseberg Creek at the following station location in 2006, 2007 and 2008: PGC 11. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | BMI samples were collected on 05/18/2006, 05/09/2007, and 5/02/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Submitted QA data are acceptable. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Pyrethroid Working Group. | ||||
DECISION ID |
85142 |
Region 5 |
Kaseberg Creek, unnamed eastern tributary (from Green Grove Ln to Del Webb Blvd) |
||
Pollutant: | Deltamethrin |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
Revision Status | Original |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. One of 3 samples exceed the 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. One of 3 samples exceed the 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: | 59084 | ||||
Pollutant: | Deltamethrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 3 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | A total of 3 individual sediment samples were collected; 1 of 3 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline (0.079 ug/g OC). | ||||
Data Reference: | Various Data for Pleasant Grove Creek, Del Puerto Creek and Roseville Area, 2006-2010. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | |||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The narrative objective for pesticides states, "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." | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for deltamethrin, 0.079 ug/g OC, is one-tenth of the median lethal concentration for H. azteca (LC50; 0.79 ug/g OC). The LC50 (0.79 ug/g OC) is the geometric mean of OC normalized LC50 values for deltamethrin from Amweg et al. (2005). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Sediment samples were collected along Kaseberg Creek at the following station location in 2006, 2007 and 2008: PGC 11. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Sediment samples were collected on 05/18/2006, 05/09/2007, and 5/02/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Submitted QA data are acceptable. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Pyrethroid Working Group. | ||||
DECISION ID |
85143 |
Region 5 |
Kaseberg Creek, unnamed eastern tributary (from Green Grove Ln to Del Webb Blvd) |
||
Pollutant: | Esfenvalerate/Fenvalerate |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
Revision Status | Original |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of 3 samples exceed the guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of 3 samples exceed the 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: | 59075 | ||||
Pollutant: | Esfenvalerate/Fenvalerate | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 3 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | A total of 3 individual sediment samples were collected; 0 of 3 exceeded the evaluation guideline (0.15 ug/g OC). | ||||
Data Reference: | Various Data for Pleasant Grove Creek, Del Puerto Creek and Roseville Area, 2006-2010. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | |||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The narrative objective for pesticides states, "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." | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for esfenvalerate/fenvalerate, 0.15 ug/g OC, is one-tenth of the median lethal concentration for H. azteca (LC50; 1.5 ug/g OC). The LC50 (1.5 ug/g OC) is the geometric mean of OC normalized LC50 values for esfenvalerate/fenvalerate from Amweg et al. (2005). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Sediment samples were collected along Kaseberg Creek at the following station location in 2006, 2007 and 2008: PGC 11. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Sediment samples were collected on 05/18/2006, 05/09/2007, and 5/02/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Submitted QA data are acceptable. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Pyrethroid Working Group. | ||||
DECISION ID |
85144 |
Region 5 |
Kaseberg Creek, unnamed eastern tributary (from Green Grove Ln to Del Webb Blvd) |
||
Pollutant: | Fenpropathrin |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
Revision Status | Original |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of 3 samples exceed the guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of 3 samples exceed the 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: | 59030 | ||||
Pollutant: | Fenpropathrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 3 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | A total of 3 individual sediment samples were collected; 0 of 3 exceeded the evaluation guideline (0.1 ug/g OC). | ||||
Data Reference: | Various Data for Pleasant Grove Creek, Del Puerto Creek and Roseville Area, 2006-2010. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | |||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The narrative objective for pesticides states, "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." | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for fenpropathrin, 0.1 ug/g OC, is one-tenth of the median lethal concentration for H. azteca (LC50; 1 ug/g OC). The LC50 (1 ug/g OC) is the geometric mean of OC normalized LC50 values for fenpropathrin from 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: | Sediment samples were collected along Kaseberg Creek at the following station location in 2006, 2007 and 2008: PGC 11. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Sediment samples were collected on 05/18/2006, 05/09/2007, and 5/02/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Submitted QA data are acceptable. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Pyrethroid Working Group. | ||||
DECISION ID |
85198 |
Region 5 |
Kaseberg Creek, unnamed eastern tributary (from Green Grove Ln to Del Webb Blvd) |
||
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)(2016) |
Revision Status | Original |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of 3 samples exceed the guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of 3 samples exceed the 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: | 59047 | ||||
Pollutant: | Permethrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 3 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | A total of 3 individual sediment samples were collected; 0 of 3 exceeded the evaluation guideline (0.89 ug/g OC). | ||||
Data Reference: | Various Data for Pleasant Grove Creek, Del Puerto Creek and Roseville Area, 2006-2010. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | |||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The narrative objective for pesticides states, "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." | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for permethrin, 0.89 ug/g OC, is one-tenth of the median lethal concentration for H. azteca (LC50; 8.9 ug/g OC). The LC50 (8.9 ug/g OC) is the geometric mean of OC normalized LC50 values for permethrin from Amweg et al. (2005). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Sediment samples were collected along Kaseberg Creek at the following station location in 2006, 2007 and 2008: PGC 11. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Sediment samples were collected on 05/18/2006, 05/09/2007, and 5/02/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Submitted QA data are acceptable. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Pyrethroid Working Group. | ||||
DECISION ID |
85200 |
Region 5 |
Kaseberg Creek, unnamed eastern tributary (from Green Grove Ln to Del Webb Blvd) |
||
Pollutant: | Toxicity |
Final Listing Decision: | List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
Revision Status | Original |
Sources: | A Source Unknown |
Expected TMDL Completion Date: | 2027 |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
One lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Three of three sediment samples exceed the evaluation guideline for toxicity. 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. Three of three sediment samples exceed the evaluation guideline for toxicity and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are exceeded and a pollutant contributes to or causes the problem. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 59093 | ||||
Pollutant: | Toxicity | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Toxicity | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 3 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 3 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | One-tenth the organic carbon normalized LC50 values for sediment-bound pyrethroids were used as toxicity thresholds in a toxicity unit (TU) analysis. Samples containing at least 2 pyrethroids with concentrations above the reporting limit were assessed for additive toxicity. 3 of 3 sediment samples indicated a calculated TU > 1, suggesting that samples had pyrethroid pesticides at levels expected to exert additive, chronic toxicity. A combination of 2 or more of the pyrethroids, bifenthrin, lambda-cyhalothrin, permethrin, cyfluthrin, cypermethrin, esfenvalerate, and deltamethrin were present in the assessed samples. | ||||
Data Reference: | Various Data for Pleasant Grove Creek, Del Puerto Creek and Roseville Area, 2006-2010. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | |||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | "The narrative toxicity objective states, ""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." | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for the TU analysis is based on the following: "The concentration of each toxic substance is divided by its toxicologic limit. The resulting ratios are added for substances having similar toxicologic effects and, separately, for carcinogens. The additive toxicity criterion has been violated if the sum of the ratios is >1 (CV Basin Plan, 2011)." | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 4th ed | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Sediment samples were collected along Kaseberg Creek at the following station location in 2006, 2007 and 2008: PGC 11. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Sediment samples were collected on 05/18/2006, 05/09/2007, and 5/02/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Submitted QA data are acceptable. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Pyrethroid Working Group. | ||||