| Water Body Name: | Cherokee Canal |
| Water Body ID: | CAR5204000020041130175907 |
| Water Body Type: | River & Stream |
DECISION ID |
5077 |
Region 5 |
Cherokee Canal |
||
| Pollutant: | Diazinon |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2006) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Nine samples were taken. Six, taken using the ELISA technique, could not be used because the data was considered to be of questionable quality. None of the usable measurements exceeded the diazinon guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification in favor of placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 3 samples exceeded the guideline and this does 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: | This is a decision made by the State Water Resources Control Board and approved by the USEPA in 2006 . No new data were assessed by the Regional Board for 2008. The decision has not changed. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
| USEPA Action (if applicable): | |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 2679 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Diazinon | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
| 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: | Nine samples were taken. The 6 analyzed using the ELISA technique could not be used because the data was considered to be of questionable quality and should not be used unless verified by GCMS. None of 3 samples using the GC/ECD/TSD technique exceeded the guideline. (Dileanis et al., 2002). | ||||
| Data Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| 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. Pesticide concentrations shall not exceed those allowable by applicable antidegradation policies (see State Water Resources Control Board Resolution No. 68-16 and 40 C.F.R. Section 131.12). Pesticide concentrations shall not exceed the lowest levels technically and economically achievable. A trend in declining water quality has not been established per the Policy in section 3.1.10. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | CDFG Hazard Assessment Criteria - 0.16 ug/L (acute). (Siepman & Finlayson, 2000; Finlayson, 2004). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | All samples were collected at Cherokee Canal at Gridley Road. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected on 1/30/00, 1/31/00, 2/11/00, 2/12/00, 2/21/00, 2/22/00. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Data from USGS reports are considered of adequate quality per section 6.1.4 of the Policy. ELISA data were not used because the results are biased. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||