| Water Body Name: | Pleasant Grove Creek, South Branch, unnamed southeastern trib (from east of Sierra View Country Club to confl with Pleasant Grove Cr, South Branch) |
| Water Body ID: | CAR5192200020120321144543 |
| Water Body Type: | River & Stream |
DECISION ID |
152014 |
Region 5 |
Pleasant Grove Creek, South Branch, unnamed southeastern trib (from east of Sierra View Country Club to confl with Pleasant Grove Cr, South Branch) |
||
| Pollutant: | Toxicity |
| Final Listing Decision: | Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2018) |
| Revision Status | Revised |
| Reason for Delisting: | Flaws in original listing |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This water body was incorrectly added to the 2018 303(d) list of impaired water bodies in 2018. Data presented in LOE 304550 were incorrectly assessed as toxicity data during the earlier Integrated Report cycle. These data have now been correctly assessed as pyrethroids in sediment. In the absence of new toxicity data for this water body the decision will be retired during a future Integrated Report cycle. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be removed from the section 303(d) list because the original basis for listing was flawed. |
| 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: | 304550 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Pyrethroids | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| 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: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | 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. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basins) | ||||
| 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 Pleasant Grove Creek at the following station location in 2006, 2007 and 2008: PGC 22. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Sediment samples were collected on 05/19/2006, 05/11/2007, 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 |
150802 |
Region 5 |
Pleasant Grove Creek, South Branch, unnamed southeastern trib (from east of Sierra View Country Club to confl with Pleasant Grove Cr, South Branch) |
||
| Pollutant: | Bifenthrin |
| Final Listing Decision: | Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed by USEPA approved TMDL) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with USEPA approved TMDL)(2018) |
| Revision Status | Revised |
| Reason for Delisting: | Flaws in original listing |
| 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 was incorrectly placed on the CWA section 303(d) List with the 2006 303(d) List based on exceedances of the bifenthrin sediment evaluation guideline and exceedance of the sediment toxicity evaluation guideline. Sediment chemistry data instead of sediment toxicity data were incorrectly used to develop the sediment toxicity line of evidence. Per Section 3.6 of the Listing Policy, a sufficient number of exceeding sediment toxicity data are necessary to place a pollutant on the 303(d) List using sediment chemistry data. This pollutant was removed from the CWA section 303(d) list because of a flaw in the original assessment and is being re-considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under 3.6 of the Policy, if available pollutant data are sediment data, a minimum of two lines of evidence are needed to assess listing status. One line of evidence is 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 placing this water segment-pollutant combination from the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Three of the three samples exceed the evaluation guideline and this sample size is sufficient to determine beneficial use support, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy. There is no associated sediment toxicity data as required by Section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. These do not exceed 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: | Decision written by SWRCB staff. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 59017 | ||||
| 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 Pleasant Grove Creek at the following station location in 2006, 2007 and 2008: PGC 22. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Sediment samples were collected on 05/19/2006, 05/11/2007, 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 |
150804 |
Region 5 |
Pleasant Grove Creek, South Branch, unnamed southeastern trib (from east of Sierra View Country Club to confl with Pleasant Grove Cr, South Branch) |
||
| Pollutant: | Cyfluthrin |
| Final Listing Decision: | Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed by USEPA approved TMDL) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with USEPA approved TMDL)(2018) |
| Revision Status | Revised |
| Reason for Delisting: | Flaws in original listing |
| 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 was incorrectly placed on the CWA section 303(d) List with the 2006 303(d) List based on exceedances of the cyfluthrin sediment evaluation guideline and exceedance of the sediment toxicity evaluation guideline. Sediment chemistry data instead of sediment toxicity data were incorrectly used to develop the sediment toxicity line of evidence. Per Section 3.6 of the Listing Policy, a sufficient number of exceeding sediment toxicity data are necessary to place a pollutant on the 303(d) List using sediment chemistry data. This pollutant was removed from the CWA section 303(d) list because of a flaw in the original assessment and is being re-considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under 3.6 of the Policy, if available pollutant data are sediment data, a minimum of two lines of evidence are needed to assess listing status. One line of evidence is 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 placing this water segment-pollutant combination from the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Two of the three samples exceed the evaluation guideline and this sample size is sufficient to determine beneficial use support, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy. There is no associated sediment toxicity data as required by Section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. These do not exceed 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: | Decision written by SWRCB staff. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 59053 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Cyfluthrin | ||||
| 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 (0.11 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 Pleasant Grove Creek at the following station location in 2006, 2007 and 2008: PGC 22. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Sediment samples were collected on 05/19/2006, 05/11/2007, 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 |
150803 |
Region 5 |
Pleasant Grove Creek, South Branch, unnamed southeastern trib (from east of Sierra View Country Club to confl with Pleasant Grove Cr, South Branch) |
||
| Pollutant: | Cypermethrin |
| Final Listing Decision: | Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed by USEPA approved TMDL) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with USEPA approved TMDL)(2018) |
| Revision Status | Revised |
| Reason for Delisting: | Flaws in original listing |
| 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 was incorrectly placed on the CWA section 303(d) List with the 2016 303(d) List based on exceedances of the cypermethrin sediment evaluation guideline and exceedance of the sediment toxicity evaluation guideline. Sediment chemistry data instead of sediment toxicity data were incorrectly used to develop the sediment toxicity line of evidence. Per Section 3.6 of the Listing Policy, a sufficient number of exceeding sediment toxicity data are necessary to place a pollutant on the 303(d) List using sediment chemistry data. This pollutant was removed from the CWA section 303(d) list because of a flaw in the original assessment and is being re-considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under 3.6 of the Policy, if available pollutant data are sediment data, a minimum of two lines of evidence are needed to assess listing status. One line of evidence is 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 placing this water segment-pollutant combination from the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Three of the three samples exceed the evaluation guideline and this sample size is sufficient to determine beneficial use support, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy. There is no associated sediment toxicity data as required by Section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. These do not exceed 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: | Decision written by SWRCB staff. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 59062 | ||||
| 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 Pleasant Grove Creek at the following station location in 2006, 2007 and 2008: PGC 22. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Sediment samples were collected on 05/19/2006, 05/11/2007, 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 |
151545 |
Region 5 |
Pleasant Grove Creek, South Branch, unnamed southeastern trib (from east of Sierra View Country Club to confl with Pleasant Grove Cr, South Branch) |
||
| 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)(2018) |
| Revision Status | Revised |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | Benthic Community Effects are being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under sections 3.9 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.9, additional lines of evidence (LOEs) associating the Benthic Community Effects decision with a water or sediment concentration of pollutants other than benthic-macroinvertebrate bioassessment or habitat assessment LOEs are necessary to place a water body on the 303(d) List for Benthic Community Effects. A past cycle LOE (LOE ID 59098) was removed because it was based on an IBI score, which has been recalculated and is reflected in the current LOEs. One line(s) of evidence evaluating benthic-macroinvertebrate bioassessment data is/are available in the administrative record to assess this indicator. Ten of ten benthic-macroinvertebrate samples exceed the California Stream Condition Index (CSCI) impairment threshold. However, a minimum of two benthic-macroinvertebrate samples are needed to assess listing status. Additional lines of evidence (LOEs) associating the Benthic Community Effects decision with a water or sediment concentration of pollutants other than benthic-macroinvertebrate bioassessment. 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 waterbody 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. Ten of ten benthic-macroinvertebrate bioassessment samples had CSCI scores below 0.79. The available information is insufficient to determine whether the waterbody/pollutant combination should be placed on the 303(d) List of impaired waters 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: | 305656 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Benthic-Macroinvertebrate Bioassessments | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Population/Community Degradation | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 10 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 10 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Benthic macroinvertebrate surveys | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed data for 519PGCR22 to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 10 of 10 samples exceeded the threshold. CSCI scores were from 0.159976742 to 0.373093542. | ||||
| Data Reference: | California Stream Condition Index (CSCI) Scores for the 2024 Integrated Report for Region 5, Sacramento River sub-region. | ||||
| 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. Region 5 Basin Plan | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins; Fifth Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The California Stream Condition Index (CSCI) is a biological scoring tool that helps aquatic resource managers translate complex data about benthic macroinvertebrates found living in a stream into an overall measure of stream health. The CSCI score is calculated by comparing the expected condition with actual (observed) results (Rehn, A.C. et al., 2015). CSCI scores range from 0 (highly degraded) to greater than 1 (equivalent to reference). CSCI scoring of biological condition are as follows (per the scientific paper supporting the development of the CSCI scoring tool): greater than or equal to 0.92 = likely intact condition, 0.91 to 0.80 = possibly altered condition, 0.79 to 0.63 = likely altered condition, less than or equal to 0.62 = very likely altered condition. Sites with scores below 0.79 are considered to have exceeded the water quality objective for the aquatic life beneficial use. | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Bioassessment in complex environments: designing an index for consistent meaning in different settings | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from station 519PGCR22. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected from 5/19/2006 to 4/20/2019. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Data were collected using Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program protocols | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements. | ||||
DECISION ID |
150801 |
Region 5 |
Pleasant Grove Creek, South Branch, unnamed southeastern trib (from east of Sierra View Country Club to confl with Pleasant Grove Cr, South Branch) |
||
| Pollutant: | Pyrethroids |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
| Revision Status | Revised |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 at least one line of evidence is necessary to assess listing station for pollutant concentration in water. Under section 3.6 at least two lines of evidence are necessary to assess listing status for pollutants sediment, and pollutant concentrations in sediment must be associated with sediment toxicity to justify adding that pollutant to the CWA section 303(d) List. One lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Three of the three samples exceed the evaluation guideline. No sediment toxicity toxicity data are available for assessment. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No water samples are available to determine beneficial use with the power and confidence required by Section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 3. Three of the three samples exceed the evaluation guideline and this sample size is sufficient to determine beneficial use support, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy. There is not an associated sediment toxicity data as required by Section 3.6 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: | Decision written by SWRCB staff. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 304550 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Pyrethroids | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| 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: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | 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. (Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basins) | ||||
| 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 Pleasant Grove Creek at the following station location in 2006, 2007 and 2008: PGC 22. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Sediment samples were collected on 05/19/2006, 05/11/2007, 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 |
153784 |
Region 5 |
Pleasant Grove Creek, South Branch, unnamed southeastern trib (from east of Sierra View Country Club to confl with Pleasant Grove Cr, 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: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 313918 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Specific Conductivity | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP BDAT data for Pleasant Grove Creek, South Branch, unnamed southeastern trib (from east of Sierra View Country Club to confl with Pleasant Grove Cr, South Branch) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the upper limit of the range for SpecificConductivity. Additionally, 0 of the 1 samples fall within the range, and 1 of 1 samples fall below the threshold. | ||||
| Data Reference: | SWAMP data entered by SWRCB into BDAT database | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The California Secondary MCL that is incorporated by reference into the Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins specifies a range for specific conductance of 900 - 1600 uS/cm assessed as an annual average. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins; Fifth Edition. Revised May 2018 (with approved amendments) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 519LSAC48 (SBPG Ck @ (S Fork @ Diamnd Oaks Blvd.)). | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2004-10-24 and 2004-10-24 | ||||
| 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): | This is a placeholder for previously assessed data that does not have quality assurance information but would require it under newly developed policies. These LOEs were previously assessed and approved at the Regional, State and Federal level in past cycles. The LOEs needed to be moved and/or reassessed but required this reference code for movement within the decision making database. | ||||
DECISION ID |
87341 |
Region 5 |
Pleasant Grove Creek, South Branch, unnamed southeastern trib (from east of Sierra View Country Club to confl with Pleasant Grove Cr, South Branch) |
||
| Pollutant: | Cyhalothrin, Lambda |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(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 3.1a one 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 the three samples exceed the Evaluation Guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the 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 three samples exceeded Evaluation Guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 59034 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Cyhalothrin, Lambda | ||||
| 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 (0.044 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 Pleasant Grove Creek at the following station location in 2006, 2007 and 2008: PGC 22. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Sediment samples were collected on 05/19/2006, 05/11/2007, 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 |
87394 |
Region 5 |
Pleasant Grove Creek, South Branch, unnamed southeastern trib (from east of Sierra View Country Club to confl with Pleasant Grove Cr, South Branch) |
||
| 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 3.1a one 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 the three samples exceed the Evaluation Guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the 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 three samples exceeded Evaluation Guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 59080 | ||||
| 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 Pleasant Grove Creek at the following station location in 2006, 2007 and 2008: PGC 22. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Sediment samples were collected on 05/19/2006, 05/11/2007, 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 |
87395 |
Region 5 |
Pleasant Grove Creek, South Branch, unnamed southeastern trib (from east of Sierra View Country Club to confl with Pleasant Grove Cr, South Branch) |
||
| 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 3.1a one 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 the three samples exceed the Evaluation Guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the 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 three samples exceeded Evaluation Guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 59071 | ||||
| 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 Pleasant Grove Creek at the following station location in 2006, 2007 and 2008: PGC 22. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Sediment samples were collected on 05/19/2006, 05/11/2007, 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 |
87396 |
Region 5 |
Pleasant Grove Creek, South Branch, unnamed southeastern trib (from east of Sierra View Country Club to confl with Pleasant Grove Cr, South Branch) |
||
| 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 3.1a one 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 the three samples exceed the Evaluation Guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the 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 three samples exceeded Evaluation Guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 59026 | ||||
| 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 Pleasant Grove Creek at the following station location in 2006, 2007 and 2008: PGC 22. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Sediment samples were collected on 05/19/2006, 05/11/2007, 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 |
86588 |
Region 5 |
Pleasant Grove Creek, South Branch, unnamed southeastern trib (from east of Sierra View Country Club to confl with Pleasant Grove Cr, South Branch) |
||
| 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 3.1a one 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 the three samples exceed the Evaluation Guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the 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 three samples exceeded Evaluation Guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 59044 | ||||
| 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 Pleasant Grove Creek at the following station location in 2006, 2007 and 2008: PGC 22. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Sediment samples were collected on 05/19/2006, 05/11/2007, 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. | ||||